trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Meetup : Jazz meetup in Philadelphia
by DasAllFolks — 2012-02-08T04:43:14.002Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Jazz meetup in Philadelphia

WHEN:
10 February 2012 06:00:00PM (-0500)

WHERE:
Woodmere Art Museum, 9201 Germantown Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19118

Consider this one a "just for fun" event, rather than a "hard" meetup (such as we will be having on Wednesday the 15th!) dealing with more serious rationality-related topics.

The Woodmere Art Museum in Chestnut Hill holds jazz concerts every Friday. A couple of us are attending this Friday's concert, "Tribute to Miles Davis: A Kinda Blue Valentine" featuring Philadelphia trumpeter Tony Smith; feel free to come out and meet some area Less-Wrongers, particularly if you weren't in the area for our last meetup!

Tickets are $15 for Woodmere members or $20 for the general public, and are available at the door or online (http://woodmereartmuseum.org/music.html). Feel free to message me for my cell in case you're afraid you might have trouble finding the place!

If turnout is good and people are interested, we may also venture out into Chestnut Hill or elsewhere for food/coffee after the concert ends at 8. Hope to see you there!

Discussion article for the meetup : Jazz meetup in Philadelphia
[SEQ RERUN] Mutual Information, and Density in Thingspace
by MinibearRex — 2012-02-08T02:07:33.080Z

Today's post, Mutual Information, and Density in Thingspace was originally published on 23 February 2008. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):

You draw your boundary around a volume of space where there is no greater-than-usual density, meaning that the associated word does not correspond to any performable Bayesian inferences. Since green-eyed people are not more likely to have black hair, or vice versa, and they don't share any other characteristics in common, why have a word for "wiggin"?

Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).
This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was Entropy, and Short Codes, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.
Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.
[LINK] Refuting common objections to cognitive enhancement
by grouchymusicologist — 2012-02-07T16:52:39.976Z

I've tended to think that bioethics is maybe the most profoundly useless field in mainstream philosophy. I might sum it up by saying that it's superficially similar to machine ethics except that the objects of its warnings and cautions are all unambiguously good things, like cognitive enhancements and life extension. In an era when we should by any reasonable measure be making huge amounts of progress on those problems—and in which one might expect bioethicists to be encouraging such research and helping weigh it against yet another dollar sent to the Susan G. Komen foundation or whatever—one mostly hears bioethicists quoted in the newspaper urging science to slow down. As if doubling human lifespans or giving everyone an extra 15 IQ points would in some way run the risk of "destroying that which makes us human" or something.

Anyway, this has basically been my perspective as a newspaper reader—I don't read specialty publications in bioethics. And perhaps it should come as no surprise that bioethics' usefulness to mainstream discourse would be to reinforce status quo bias, whether that's a true reflection of the field or not. In any case, it was a welcome surprise to see an interview in The Atlantic with Allen Buchanan, who apparently is an eminent bioethicist (Duke professor, President's Council on Bioethics), entirely devoted to refuting common objections to cognitive enhancement.

Some points Buchanan makes, responding to common worries:

There's no good reason to think the human body and its capabilities are anywhere near their maximum.

Technologies that make human lives better tend to have egalitarian effects in the long run (he mentions cell phones), even if they're at first available only to the wealthy.

A much smarter human population will probably be morally, as well as cognitively, enhanced—the "evil genius" problem isn't necessarily a realistic one to worry about.

Many people worry that the use of cognitive enhancement by people who are willing to self-experiment is unfair to those who don't want to or fear the risks. Buchanan points out that this problem could be largely alleviated by more research into safety and efficacy of drugs with cognitive enhancement potential. The current atmosphere of fear, dubious legal status, and unwillingness to do large-scale testing surrounding cognitive enhancement is counterproductive in this

...
Diseased disciplines: the strange case of the inverted chart
by Morendil — 2012-02-07T09:45:38.304Z

Imagine the following situation: you have come across numerous references to a paper purporting to show that the chances of successfully treating a disease contracted at age 10 are substantially lower if the disease is detected later: somewhat lower at age 20 to very poor at age 50. Every author draws more or less the same bar chart to depict this situation: the picture below, showing rising mortality from left to right.

You search for the original paper, which proves a long quest: the conference publisher have lost some of their archives in several moves, several people citing the paper turn out to no longer have a copy, etc. You finally locate a copy of the paper (let's call it G99) thanks to a helpful friend with great scholarly connections.

And you find out some interesting things.

The most striking is what the author's original chart depicts: the chances of successfully treating the disease detected at age 50 become substantially lower as a function of age when it was contracted; mortality is highest if the disease was contracted at age 10 and lowest if contracted at age 40. The chart showing this is the picture below, showing decreasing mortality from top to bottom, for the same ages on the vertical axis.

Not only is the representation topsy-turvy; the two diagrams can't be about the same thing, since what is constant in the first (age disease detected) is variable in the other, and what is variable in the first (age disease contracted) is constant in the other.

Now, as you research the issue a little more, you find out that authors prior to G99 have often used the first diagram to report their findings; reportedly, several different studies on different populations (dating back to the eighties) have yielded similar results.

But when citing G99, nobody reproduces the actual diagram in G99, they all reproduce the older diagram (or some variant of it).

You are tempted to conclude that the authors citing G99 are citing "from memory"; they are aware of the earlier research, they have a vague recollection that G99 contains results that are not totally at odds with the earlier research. Same difference, they reason, G99 is one more confirmation of the earlier research, which is adequately summarized by the standard diagram.

And then you come across a paper by the same author, but from 10 years earlier. Let's call it G89. There is a strong presumption that the stud...
[SEQ RERUN] Entropy, and Short Codes
by MinibearRex — 2012-02-07T03:40:39.734Z

Today's post, Entropy, and Short Codes was originally published on 23 February 2008. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):

You use a short word for something that you won't need to describe often, or a long word for something you'll need to describe often. This can result in inefficient thinking, or even misapplications of Occam's Razor, if your mind thinks that short sentences sound "simpler". Which sounds more plausible, "God did a miracle" or "A supernatural universe-creating entity temporarily suspended the laws of physics"?

Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).
This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was Where to Draw the Boundary?, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.
Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.
Meetup : West LA Meetup 02-08-2012
by  — 2012-02-07T02:28:48.631Z

Discussion article for the meetup : West LA Meetup 02-08-2012

WHEN:
08 February 2012 07:00:00PM (-0800)

WHERE:
10850 West Pico Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90064

When: 7:00pm - 9:00pm Wednesday, February 8th.

Where: The Westside Tavern in the upstairs Wine Bar (all ages welcome), located inside the Westside Pavillion on the second floor, right by the movie theaters.

Parking is free for 3 hours.

Discussion Activity: Cognitive Biases Round-robin. Choose at least one item from Wikipedia's List of Cognitive Biases, and read up on it enough to introduce the topic to the group. Then, as a group, we will try to identify real-life situations where the bias would come into play, how it could be harmful, when it doesn't matter (or even helps!), and how to counter or use it.

This is also a good time to browse recent posts, especially those that pertain to our activity!

Don't worry if you don't have time to read anything, or even if you've never read any Less Wrong! Bring a friend! The atmosphere is casual, and good, intelligent conversation with friendly people is guaranteed.

I will bring a whiteboard with Bayes' Theorem written on it.

Discussion article for the meetup : West LA Meetup 02-08-2012
Google Solve for X
by  — 2012-02-06T22:02:47.520Z

Google seems to be establishing a presence for discussing "radical technology ideas for solving global problems" at Solve for X. I thought there might be some overlap of ideas here, so this is for anyone that hasn't already seen it elsewhere. It might just be hype, though. (I'm inclined to think it probably is, but that may be my cynical side talking. Take everything it says with a grain of salt.)

There doesn't seem to be much more to say about the site at the moment.

Edit: Video presentations are starting to appear here.
[Poll] Method of Recruitment
by daenerys — 2012-02-06T17:37:25.968Z

In another thread, we have been discussing how people (especially female people) have come to find out about LessWrong. Instead of just guessing, I figured I would make a poll.

I remember in recent history there was a thread on the subject, but the answers were mainly "I got here from HPMoR" or "I've been here since OB". However, the question I want answered is:

How did you find HPMoR or OB in the first place?

Were you referred by a friend? Were you searching the internet for keywords like "rationality"? Were you linked from some other site you read?

Please answer! Even if you are a lurker; ESPECIALLY if you are a female reader! (There is a question where you can say you are a lurker, if you like!)

Click here to take the poll!

ETA- female *reader* and female *people*
Sticky threads?
by Anubhav — 2012-02-06T04:12:39.976Z

It annoys me that there's no way to sticky a thread in the discussion section.

Therefore, I propose creating an LW wiki page called "Stickies", where sticky-worthy threads would be linked to. Would that be acceptable?

These are the threads I'm planning to add:

the current Welcome to LW thread

the current MoR Discussion thread

the current Rationality Quotes thread (OK, they're posted in Main, but still...)

the current Open Thread

the current Media Thread

the current 'What are you working on?' thread

ETA: Following a tip-off by peaigr, I re-purposed the Special Threads wiki page for this. (The stickies are in the 'periodic threads' section.) Now if there were a way to make this page more conspicuous...

Meanwhile, dbaupp has submitted a feature request.
Meetup : Salt Lake City Meetup #3 - Bayesian reasoning in everyday life
by adamisom — 2012-02-06T03:56:42.124Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Salt Lake City Meetup #3 - Bayesian reasoning in everyday life

WHEN:
18 February 2012 03:00:00PM (-0700)

WHERE:
810 E 3300 S

Future MeetUps, after the 4th, won't be announced here, because there's a Site for that:
https://sites.google.com/site/lesswrongsaltlakecity
There is also a discussion forum, which is embedded into the SIte.

The actual Meetup #3 is this Saturday (the 18th) from 3:00-4:30 pm at Calvin S Smith Library. More info can be found on the Site.

In order to make comments or other edits to the Site, you will need to email me or join the Google Group so I can add you.

Discussion article for the meetup : Salt Lake City Meetup #3 - Bayesian reasoning in everyday life
Which College Major?
by eggman — 2012-02-06T01:45:11.719Z

N.B.: This discussion isn't up for mainstream article status, as far as I'm concerned (unless someone else wants to take it and run with it). I just didn't know how else to direct an important question to the LW community in general.

I'm currently a first-year university student in Vancouver, Canada, attending UBC. I have a trust fund and otherwise I will not need to worry about paying for my undergraduate degree. I am open to the idea of going to grad school. So, I have the luxury to take my time in my studies and there are lots of options I can choose from. Majors I'm considering are Cognitive Systems, Economics (and philosophy or math or stats), English, Philosophy and History of Science, Mathematical Sciences/CompSci, or Psychology. I'm open to other options. So, have at it with your suggestions.

Specific Questions:

Should I care more about making money or doing something that I have a "passion" for?

How will this allow me to maximize my production of utilons?

What else should I keep in mind?
[SEQ RERUN] Where to Draw the Boundary?
by MinibearRex — 2012-02-06T00:03:29.153Z

Today's post, Where to Draw the Boundary? was originally published on 21 February 2008. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):

Your definition draws a boundary around things that don't really belong together. You can claim, if you like, that you are defining the word "fish" to refer to salmon, guppies, sharks, dolphins, and trout, but not jellyfish or algae. You can claim, if you like, that this is merely a list, and there is no way a list can be "wrong". Or you can stop playing nitwit games and admit that you made a mistake and that dolphins don't belong on the fish list.

Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).
This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was Arguing "By Definition", and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.
Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.
How can people be actually converted?
by yttrium — 2012-02-05T22:13:47.363Z

Have you ever convinced a religious person to become atheistic? How did you do this? How long did it take? Were the people in some sort of life crisis, or were they just living along?

This is probably a quite difficult task of persuasion. So stories how people were successful at it could be very interesting to improve ones' persuasion abilities.

Relatedly, it might be interesting to know what religious groups have gathered on techniques to convert people to their religion - are there some manuals/techniques floating around?
The Singularity Institute needs remote researchers (writing skill not required)
by lukeprog — 2012-02-05T22:02:00.819Z

The Singularity Institute needs researchers capable of doing literature searches, critically analyzing studies, and summarizing their findings. The fields involved are mostly psychology (biases and debiasing, effective learning, goal-directed behavior / self help), computer science (AI and AGI), technological forecasting, and existential risks.

Gwern's work (e.g. on sunk costs and spaced repetition) is near the apex of what we need, but you don't need to be as skilled as Gwern or write as much as he does to do most of the work that we need.

Pay is hourly and starts at $14/hr but that will rise if the product is good. You must be available to work at least 20 hrs/week to be considered.

Perks:

Work from home, with flexible hours.

Age and credentials are irrelevant; only the product matters.

Get paid to research things you're probably interested in anyway.

Contribute to human knowledge in immediately actionable ways. We need this research because we're about to act on it. Your work will not fall into the journal abyss that most academic research falls into.

If you're interested, apply here.

Why post this job ad on LessWrong? We need people with some measure of genuine curiosity.

Also see Scholarship: How to Do It Efficiently.
Cargo Cult Language
by Said Achmiz — 2012-02-05T21:32:56.631Z

A cargo cult is a religious practice based on imitating the behavior of more-advanced societies, without understanding its true nature or purpose, in the hope of receiving the apparent benefit of that behavior. Members of cargo cults — which have sprung up in a number of tribal societies following their interaction with modern cultures — build crude imitations of airstrips, radio towers, and the like, under the misapprehension that it’s these rituals that magically attract airplanes full of material wealth (“cargo”) to land and deliver their goods.

The term has since been applied in other contexts. Richard Feynman spoke about “cargo cult science”, when scientists conduct research that superficially resembles the scientific method without any of the integrity and rigor that makes it a successful method of inquiry, and there is also “cargo cult programming”, when programmers include code in their programs without understanding its purpose, merely because they’ve seen it used in examples or the programs of more experienced coders.

I now want to extend the metaphor to a certain sort of error in language use. Call it cargo cult language: using words or phrases, usually incorrectly, with no understanding of the origin of the words or their exact meaning, merely on the basis of having heard such constructions elsewhere in similar contexts.

Do not mistake my point for pedantic railing against mangled grammar, spelling, or pronunciation. Before I elaborate or provide examples, I’d like to distinguish the thing I’m talking about from two related, but subtly different, problems.

The first is errors of grammar or usage: their/there/they’re; would of/could of/should of; can’t hardly; alot. In each case, the speaker or writer almost certainly knows what they mean to say; they are simply mistaken about the correct way to say it. Furthermore, the reader or listener is also unlikely to be confused for any longer than the time it takes to do a mental double-take at the misused word; the context almost always resolves the ambiguities created by such errors.

The second related but distinct problem is the sort of thing which George Orwell criticized in his essay “Politics and the English Language”. Orwell wrote of stale, overused phrases, clichés, and metaphors which tak...
Curious authors and 'zines?
by lukeprog — 2012-02-05T20:47:59.006Z

I sometimes enjoy investigative reporting and news analysis published at some of the leading 'zines: The Economist, The Atlantic, Wired, Businessweek, Salon, The New Yorker. (Note: I never check these sites; I just occasionally click through from other, more selective sources.)

But I don't read enough stories to have found any that I'm confident are consistently driven by genuine curiosity. Imagine a webzine where stories are researched by a horde of gwern uploads and written by a horde Yvain uploads.

Can LWers recommend any consistently curious webzines/magazines, or at least some consistently curious authors?

For example: Glenn Greenwald shows some promise, but I haven't had time to investigate. How about Seymour Hersh? Greg Palast? TruthOut? FAIR?
February 2012 Media Thread
by RobertLumley — 2012-02-05T14:23:31.759Z

There was a recent discussion considering the idea of a monthly Book (later expanded to movies, links, etc) thread. The poll was pretty unanimous (Both before and after I was karmassassinated) that this was A Good Idea (tm), and daenerys's Janurary thread (from which I obviously stole a lot of this) was fairly successful, so let's see if we actually need one per month.
Post what you're reading or watching, and your opinion of it. Post recommendations to blogs. Post whatever media you feel like discussing!

Rules:

Please avoid downvoting; this is a thread for sharing subjective experiences, and people should feel comfortable posting their personal opinion without fearing a karma backlash. If you disagree with a person's recommendation, please post a comment to that effect.

If you see something that has been recommended before, but have another recommendation to add, please link to the original, so that the reader has both recommendations.

Please use the comment trees, which I was apparently too dumb to do.
What are you working on? February 2012
by David_Gerard — 2012-02-05T12:33:09.175Z

This is the bimonthly 'What are you working On?' thread. Previous threads are here. So here's the question:

What are you working on?

Here are some guidelines:

Focus on projects that you have recently made progress on, not projects that you're thinking about doing but haven't started.

Why this project and not others? Mention reasons why you're doing the project and/or why others should contribute to your project (if applicable).

Talk about your goals for the project.

Any kind of project is fair game: personal improvement, research project, art project, whatever.

Link to your work if it's linkable.
[Link] Cognitive Sciences Stack Exchange opened
by Kaj_Sotala — 2012-02-05T08:07:39.264Z

This is probably of interest to many here: Cognitive Sciences Stack Exchange.

For those who aren't in the know, the Stack Exchange family of forums is a set of sites where users may post questions and answers. They are divided by subject matter, each trying to collect a community of experts who can collectively answer any well-defined question relating to the domain. The about Stack Exchange page boasts that 90% of questions get great answers, "often stunningly quickly". Probably the most famous SE site is Stack Overflow, the computer programming site that started it all.

I find the creation of a Cogsci SE to be quite exciting, as it seems like it could quickly become an invaluable resource for anyone interested in the subject matter. I encourage people to take a look and contribute if they can, or lurk if they can't - there are a number of interesting questions and answers already. (For instance, I found this answer about biofeedback quite interesting.) I already contributed one answer myself.

In addition to helping contribute to an improved understanding of cognitive science, this might also be a good opportunity for LWers to make a bit of a name for themselves among net-savvy cogsci academics. No idea if that's actually useful, but it might be a bit of a pleasant ego boost if you don't have anything better to do with your time. ;-)