trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Can we really prevent all warming for less than 10B$ with the mostly side-effect free geoengineering technique of Marine Cloud Brightening?
by mako yass — 2019-08-05T00:12:14.630Z

If we're to believe the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, or the Copenhagen Consensus Center, or apparently any of the individual geoengineering researchers who've modelled it, it's possible to halt all warming by building a fleet of autonomous wind-powered platforms that do nothing more sinister than spraying seawater into the air, in a place no more ecologically sensitive than the open ocean, and for no greater cost than 10 billion USD

(edit: I'm not sure where the estimate of 10B came from. I saw the estimate of 9B in a lot of news reports relating to CCC, and I rounded up to be conservative, but I couldn't easily find CCC materials confirming this number)

If this works, no significant warming will be allowed to occur after the political static friction that opposes the use of geoengineering is broken.

Isn't any amount of mean warming bad? So shouldn't we deploy something like this as soon as possible? Shouldn't we have started deploying it years ago?

Side effects seem minimal. Relative to seeding clouds with sulpherous chemicals (which will also be considered, once the heat becomes unbearable), it leaves no ozone-eliminating residue, it produces no acid rain. It may disturb rainfall in some regions, but it seems that it may be viable to just avoid seeding too close those regions.

I want to make it clear how little support this needs in order to get done: 10 billion USD is less than a quarter of the tax income generated by the nation of just New Zealand one year. A single tiny oecd government could, in theory, do it alone. It wont need the support of a majority of the US. It probably wont require any support from the US at all.

What should we do with this information?

I do buy the claim that public support for any sort of emission control will evaporate the moment geoengineering is realised as a tolerable alternative. Once the public believe, there will never be a quorum of voters willing to sacrifice anything of their own to reduce emissions. I think we may need to start talking about it anyway, at this point. Major emitters have already signalled a clear lack of any real will to change. The humans will not repent. Move on. Stop waiting for humanity to be punished for its sin, act, do something that has some chance of solving the problem.

Could the taboos against discussing geoengineering delay the discovery...
[Resource Request] What's the sequence post which explains you should continue to believe things about a particle moving that's moving beyond your ability to observe it?
by Ruby — 2019-08-04T22:31:37.063Z

I think it's a good and legitimate use of the question system to ask people to help you locate posts you can't quite remember where it is, or request posts relevant to a topic you're interested in. If there are ever "too many" such questions, I'm sure we can find a suitable way to "filter" them to be seen only in suitable places.

The posts is something about a particle moving at the speed of light and that you should continue to believe in your models even though you can't observe it any more: moving at the speed of light + expanding universe (?).
Where do analogies break down?
by neilkakkar — 2019-08-04T21:23:55.105Z
Link: https://neilkakkar.com/analogies.html

At 13, I began tinkering with every random device around my house. I pulled apart hundreds of them - remote controlled cars, table fans, aquarium purifiers, and even my PS2 controller. Figuring out how the vibrate function worked on my PS2 controller was pretty awesome! I could visualize how things worked on the inside.

I couldn’t always put them back together. I broke a few, I lost a few, but I realised this process was crucial to understanding how they work, and the limits of their use. If I don’t get to the breaking point, how can I know where the breaking point is?

Growing older, this translated into doing the same with code. Visualizing how systems like Facebook, Reddit, Snapchat work, going on their tech blogs to confirm my design, and sometimes simply inspecting the code running in my browser.

And recently, thanks to writing, I realised this breakdown and build up process works in language as well. To understand concepts better, you need to understand their breaking point.

That’s where analogies come in.

Strengthening ideas via analogies

An Analogy is a comparison between two similar things. Metaphors and Similes are just one way to express that comparison.

Do you see what I did there with the introduction?

Analogies are great to internalise difficult concepts. They help you relate things to what you already know and that helps build the base.

One step forward is figuring out where the analogies break down. By definition, since it’s an analogy, it isn’t the same thing. So, what makes it different?

If you can answer this, you’ll understand the concept better.

This idea of understanding (and making decisions) via analogies has a name: Reasoning by analogy.

What does this look like?

Since this new thing you’re facing is similar to the old thing you faced ages ago, let’s do what worked then. It has been getting a bad rap recently, thanks to the popularization of First Principles Thinking.

Reasoning by First Principles is the opposite: Assume nothing, go back to the basics, the axioms, and figure out the structure, not just the surface.

That’s bloody difficult to do, and not feasible for every small problem. However, if you can figure out what’s same and what’s different, you can start there. But then again, you need to figure out where analogies break down, the breaking point, to then use that as a base for First Principles.1

As Roald Hoffmann wrote in The Metaphor, Unch...
Inversion of theorems into definitions when generalizing
by riceissa — 2019-08-04T17:44:07.044Z

This post describes a pattern of abstraction that is common in mathematics, which I haven't seen described in explicit terms elsewhere. I would appreciate pointers to any existing discussions. Also, I would appreciate more examples of this phenomenon, as well as corrections and other insights!

Note on prerequisites for this post: in the opening example below, I assume familiarity with linear algebra and plane geometry, so this post probably won't make much sense without at least some superficial knowledge of these subjects. In the second part of the post, I give a bunch of further examples of the phenomenon, but these examples are all independent, so if you haven't studied a particular subject before, that specific example might not make sense, but you can just skip it and move on to the ones you do understand.

There is something peculiar about the dependency of the following concepts in math:

Pythagorean theorem

Law of cosines

Angle between two vectors

Dot product

Inner product

In the Euclidean geometry of R2 (the plane) and R3 (three-dimensional space), one typically goes through a series of steps like this:

Using the axioms of Euclidean geometry (in particular the parallel postulate), we prove the Pythagorean theorem.

We take the right angle to have angle π/2 and calculate other angles in terms of this one.

The Pythagorean theorem allows us to prove the law of cosines (there are many proofs of the law of cosines, but this is one way to do it).

Now we make the Cartesian leap to analytic geometry, and start treating points as strings of numbers in some coordinate system. In particular, the Pythagorean theorem now gives us a formula for the distance between two points, and the law of cosines can also be restated in terms of coordinates.

Playing around with the law of cosines (stated in terms of coordinates) yields the formula x1y1+x2y2=∥(x1,x2)∥∥(y1,y2)∥cosθ, where (x1,x2) and (y1,y2) are two vectors and θ is the angle between them (and similarly for three dimensions), which motivates us to define the dot product (as being precisely this quantity).

In other words, we take angle and distance as primitive, and derive the inner product (which is the dot product in the case of Euclidean spaces).

But now, consider what we do in (abstract) linear algebra:

We have a vector space, which is a structured space satisfying some funny axioms.

We define an inner product

...
Cephaloponderings
by Jacob Falkovich — 2019-08-04T16:45:57.065Z

Cross-posted from Putanumonit.

Hello all. This is Jacob’s wife, and while Jacob is off chilling in the fjords, I’m staying home and have volunteered to write a guest post.

Instead of trying to match the usual Putanumonit fare, I chose to write about something I find very exciting. I’m a biologist, and while I normally work on research involving the sense of touch in tiny roundworms, I love to read about interesting animal biology that I come across through pop-sci media. Yes, I am one of those people you might find spouting “weird animal sex facts” at parties. But seriously, the diversity of life out there is incredible, and I really can’t get enough of learning and thinking about it. So here’s a bit about a creature that’s been capturing my fascination recently.

Consider the octopus. But first, you might want to consider considering the octopus. Why consider the octopus? I think they’re incredibly interesting creatures, and upon reflecting I think that’s probably because I’m so confused by them. They wouldn’t be very interesting to me if everything I knew about them fit well into my world view without jostling the content or structure of surrounding information, even if I had reached the point of knowing enough to know how much I didn’t know. Working in research, I’ve been whacked upon the head several times with the fact that just because information isn’t known or a problem isn’t solved, that doesn’t automatically mean that anyone cares about learning the information or solving the problem.

That goes for myself as well: I don’t know how many teeth the average walrus has, but until now it’s never occurred to me to look it up because it really doesn’t make much of a difference to me whether it’s 26 or 32. Once I started thinking about it, I had to Google the answer (it’s 18), but I’m happy to stop there instead of asking the same question about every other toothed animal I can think to name. It’s slightly more interesting for me to consider what walruses use their tusks for (Google says mostly for gripping the ice to haul themselves out of the water), but why should that question be more interesting? Walrus tusks are weird, and weirdness contributes to interestingness.

Whaaaat is going on?

For me, having the initial question answered actually spawns more questions. If tusks are so useful for pulling oneself up onto the ice, why are there seals without tusks? Now...
LessWrong Community Weekend 2019 – Last 10 Spots
by DreamFlasher — 2019-08-04T09:20:49.181Z

TL;DR:
10 remaining spots! Apply here: tiny.cc/lwcw2019_signup
Keynote by Dr. Wanja Wiese: “From Predictive Engines to Conscious Machines and Uploading?”
Already joining us in Berlin? Tell your best fellow human to join us
When? Fr 30.08 noon - Mo 02.09 Where? http://jh-wannsee.de How much? €200

Less than 28 days left until the LessWrong Community and aspiring rationalists take off together for an exciting long weekend of sharing, exploration, connection and celebration. In the last few months we have already gotten many inspiring applications and filled all but the very last 10 spots! Apply now and join us for this special event.

From Friday August 30th to Monday 2nd September aspiring rationalists from across Europe will gather for 4 days of socializing, fun and intellectual exploration. The majority of the content will be unconference style and participant driven. Yet, we are very delighted to welcome Dr. Wanja Wiese as our keynote speaker and his take on predictive engines, conscious machines, and uploading. Find the full abstract for the keynote attached below.

On Friday afternoon we will put up four big daily planners and before you can spell “epistemology” the attendees will fill them up with 50+ workshops, talks and activities of their own devising, such as sessions about rationality techniques, acrobatic yoga and authentic relating; you can learn all about new hyper-cost-effective altruistic interventions, whether a dragon could hover and much much more.

This is our 6th year and we feel that the atmosphere and sense of community at these weekends is something really special. If that sounds like something you would enjoy and you have some exciting ideas or skills to contribute, do come along and get involved. This year is the biggest one yet and it’s an entire day longer than previous years!

The ticket price of €200 includes accommodation for 3 nights, on-site meals (breakfast, lunch, dinner) and snacks, as well as a tasty welcome lunch at 12:00 on Friday, and a shuttle bus from the restaurant to the venue. On Monday, we checkout by 10:00, but can continue to use some of the conference rooms for coworking and socializing until 15:00.

We still have spots available! Apply here: tiny.cc/lwcw2019_signup and make sure to let us know what experience and ideas you may contribute to this event: tiny.cc/lwcw2019_contribution.

If you would not attend due to financial

...
Zeno walks into a bar
by lsusr — 2019-08-04T07:00:27.114Z

Zeno walks into a bar.
"I have a problem," he said.
"What is it?" said the bartender.
"Well, it has to do with the movement of physical bodies," said Zeno.
"Talk to my friend Max," said the bartender. He gestured toward a German man wearing round spectacles.
"Sir," said Zeno, "I wonder if you could help me with a problem."
"What's the problem?" said Max.
"Suppose I shoot an arrow from point A to point B," said Zeno. "Before it reaches point B it must first reach a point C1 midway between points A and B."
"Naturally," said Max.
"And before the arrow reaches point C1 it must reach a point C2 midway between points C1 and A," continued Zeno.
"I see," said Max.
"And before the arrow reaches point C2 it must reach a point C3 midway between points C2 and A," continued Zeno.
"Wait a minute," said Max. "How far apart are points A and B?"
"10 meters," said Zeno.
"Then yes," said Max. "I understand your situation."
"And before the arrow reaches point C3 it must reach a point C4 midway between points C3 and A," continued Zeno. "Do you see the impasse?"
"Nope," said Max, "I think we're getting somewhere. How long is the arrow?"
"One meter," said Zeno.
"The distance between points C3 and C4 is five eighths of a meter," said Max. "A one-meter-long arrow can be at point C3 and C4 at the same time."
"Let's consider the tip of the arrow then," said Zeno. "Before the tip of the arrow reaches point C3 it must reach a point C4 midway between points C3 and A."
They talked deep into the night.
"And before the high-energy particle reaches point C118 it must reach a point C119 midway between points C118 and A," continued Zeno.
"Hold on," said Max. "How far apart are points A and C119?"
"1.5×10−35 meters" said Zeno.
"That's shorter than 1.6×10−35 meters," said Max. "The uncertainty in the position of a particle must always exceed 1.6×10−35 meters, because of space-time equivalence and the quantum-mechanical velocity operator's non-commutation with position. Even theoretically, the wave function of a particle can't ever occupy a space smaller than 1.6×10−35 me...
Alleviating Bipolar with meditation
by Elo — 2019-08-04T05:15:49.246Z

Original post: Alleviating Bipolar with meditation

I was asked on the slack, about bipolar and what might help from a meditation standpoint. I have my own experiences to share. (standard non-medical advice disclaimer applies here, i’m not qualified to give professional advice and you should probably confirm with a professional if you have doubts about trying any of this.)

Here’s a list of things that might help with the subjective mood swinging of bipolar experience.

1. A broadening of awareness and contexts.

For about 6 months of time when I was really focused on moods (and 10 years before that), I felt like I didn’t have moods, moods had me (moods distinct from emotions which can be had from moment to moment, moods are more like background, the colour of the day). I would wake up and find out today was “miserable” or “excited”.

I worked on a specific type of meditation practice that is called broadening of awareness (there are 2 different instructions for methods). I got lucky that this helped me and I wasn’t expecting it. When moods had me, it felt like things “just are” miserable. Now my awareness is broader than the moods and “I”* contain them. (*meditative “I” and “self” are a rabbit hole)

Instructions: Most people have their sense of their self boundary in line with their skin barrier. “I” end at my skin. But it’s possible to expand that boundary, and shift it to larger. Particularly the “kinetic sphere”, the area where one might be able to reach outside the body, and then further to the whole room size. Holding this “barrier” thing at the size of the room means that I’m “anchored” metaphorically to more solid things than my own body. Obviously “I’m” still the same but my ground is the actual stationary room. Which does not feel moods like my body does. (*explanation of why it helps may be entirely irrelevant, fact is, anecdata: it helped me)

There’s space in my new expanded “me” to find the body being a certain mood but also to find stillness out there in the room which doesn’t get dragged around like the moods do. I felt the pull of daily moods dry up. Obviously my body is still in grump but “I’m not” mentally trapped in that experience. From there, there’s a new, deeper breathing pattern that supports the broader awareness practice and that’s to be discovered and also hinted at. I would encourage trying it for a few minutes a day and then going for ...
Proposed algorithm to fight anchoring bias
by John_Maxwell — 2019-08-03T04:07:41.484Z

Anchoring is a classic cognitive bias which has been discussed on Less Wrong before. Anchoring seems very difficult to avoid. Experiments have found that warning subjects about anchoring, or giving them cash incentives, doesn't solve the problem.

Here's an algorithm to fight anchoring that I would like to see a researcher test, based on binary search:

Tell subjects to think of a number which is clearly too high for the quantity they want to estimate (an upper bound).

Tell subjects to think of a number which is clearly too low (a lower bound).

Tell subjects to find the midpoint of the upper bound and the lower bound and figure out whether it's too high or too low.

The midpoint has now been judged as an upper/lower bound. Combined with the original lower/upper bound, we have a new, narrower range to explore. If this range is narrow enough, report its midpoint; otherwise go to step 3.

You could have two experimental conditions: one condition where subjects think of a number which is clearly too high first (the steps are in the order above), and another condition where subjects think of a number which is clearly too low first (steps 1 & 2 are swapped). If estimates from the two conditions are similar, the technique is successful.
Open & Welcome Thread - August 2019
by Ruby — 2019-08-02T23:56:26.343Z

If it’s worth saying, but not worth its own post, here's a place to put it.

You can also make a shortform post.

And, if you are new to LessWrong, here's the place to introduce yourself.

Personal stories, anecdotes, or just general comments on how you found us and what you hope to get from the site and community are welcome.

If you want to explore the community more, I recommend reading the Library, checking recent Curated posts, seeing if there are any meetups in your area, and checking out the Getting Started section of the LessWrong FAQ.

The Open Thread sequence is here.
'Longtermism' definitional discussion on EA Forum
by ESRogs — 2019-08-02T23:53:03.731Z
Link: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/qZyshHCNkjs3TvSem/longtermism

Will MacAskill is seeking to come to consensus on the meaning of the term longtermism in the EA community. Figured my fellow LW-er EAs who check LW more often than the EA Forum may want to follow along and possibly weigh in.
Practical consequences of impossibility of value learning
by Stuart_Armstrong — 2019-08-02T23:06:03.317Z

There is a No Free Lunch result in value-learning. Essentially, you can't learn the preferences of an agent from its behaviour unless you make assumptions about its rationality, and you can't learn its rationality unless you make assumptions about its preferences.

More importantly, simplicity/Occam's razor/regularisation don't help with this, unlike with most No Free Lunch theorems. Among the simplest explanations of human behaviour are:

We are always fully rational all the time.

We are always fully anti-rational all the time.

We don't actually prefer anything to anything.

That result, though mathematically valid, seems highly theoretical, and of little practical interest - after all, for most humans, it's obvious what other humans want, most of the time. But I'll argue that the result has strong practical consequences.

Identifying clickbait

Suppose that Facebook or some other corporation decides to cut down on the amount of clickbait on its feeds.

This shouldn't be too hard, the programmers reason. They start by selecting a set of clickbait examples, and check how people engage with these. They programme a neural net to recognise that kind of "engagement" on other posts, which nets a large amount of candidate clickbait. They then go through the candidate posts, labelling the clear examples of clickbait and the clear non-examples, and add these to the training and test sets. They retrain and improve the neural net. A few iterations later, their neural net is well trained, and they let it run on all posts, occasionally auditing the results. Seeking to make the process more transparent, they run interpretability methods on the neural net, seeking to isolate the key components of clickbait, and clear away some errors or over-fits - maybe the equivalent, for clickbait, of removing the "look for images of human arms" in the dumbbell identification nets.

The central issue

Could that method work? Possibly. With enough data and enough programming efforts, it certainly seems that it could. So, what's the problem?

The problem is that so many stages of the process requires choices on the part of the programmers. The initial selection of clickbait in the first place; the labelling of candidates at the second stage; the number of cycles of iterations and improvements; the choice of explicit hyper-parameters and implicit ones (like how long to run each iteration); the audi

...