trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Meetup : São Paulo, Transhumanist Manifestation, Lesswrongers invited
by diegocaleiro — 2013-06-30T19:01:55.912Z

The Transhumanist community in Brazil nearly coincides with the "read a few posts on Lesswrong" community.

So anyone nearby São Paulo is invited to join us in this event, to harness the let's take the streets climate around the country to talk about Transhumanism and have a picnic... It will be by far the biggest event with Lesswrong readers to take place in Brazil, if, say, 8 people show up out of 28 confirmed and 18 maybes...

https://www.facebook.com/events/583621724994218/?ref=notif&notif_t=plan_user_joined

Here is the description in portuguese for those who'd like to attend and have no facebook. Saturday, July 6. If anyone needs a translation to decide send me a private message or use google tradutor.
Cansado das manifestações Contra tudo aquilo que você é contra? Venha se manifestar A FAVOR de alguma coisa que você é a favor, mas não sabia que tem nome!!
Venha defender a importância de modificar a condição humana usando tecnologia, o Transhumanismo.
Vamos nos aglomerar, com mentes abertas, instrumentos musicais e comes e bebes, na Praça Alexandre Gusmão, ao lado do Parque Trianon, fazer um grande Piquenique das 15:00 até as 16:30 e subir em direção a Paulista, no vão do MASP. A favor de...
- A FAVOR do uso de tecnologia para tornar o ser humano mais cooperativo, altruísta, moral, utiltarista, gentil do que já é!
- A FAVOR de um programa de incentivo a pesquisa contra o envelhecimento (anti-ageing)
- A FAVOR de aprimoramentos cognitivos que permitam às pessoas ser mais inteligentes, como o chocolate, o café, o Stavigile, e o Piracetam!
- A FAVOR de um interesse maior em Ética no longo prazo, em particular a FAVOR de pesquisa e ação política que vise evitar Riscos Existenciais, como guerra Nuclear, Inteligência Artificial Não-amigável, Colapso Ambiental Global.
- A FAVOR de pensar questões políticas quantitativamente, visando beneficiar o maior número da maneira que gere mais benefícios!
- A FAVOR da liberdade de escolher seu modelo familiar e de relacionamento, de abortar, de garantir aos indivíduos o direito de intervir em seus corpos, mentes e vontades, indep...
Why one-box?
by PhilosophyStudent — 2013-06-30T02:38:00.967Z

I have sympathy with both one-boxers and two-boxers in Newcomb's problem. Contrary to this, however, many people on Less Wrong seem to be staunch and confident one-boxers. So I'm turning to you guys to ask for help figuring out whether I should be a staunch one-boxer too. Below is an imaginary dialogue setting out my understanding of the arguments normally advanced on LW for one-boxing and I was hoping to get help filling in the details and extending this argument so that I (and anyone else who is uncertain about the issue) can develop an understanding of the strongest arguments for one-boxing.

One-boxer: You should one-box because one-boxing wins (that is, a person that one-boxes ends up better off than a person that two-boxes). Not only does it seem clear that rationality should be about winning generally (that a rational agent should not be systematically outperformed by irrational agents) but Newcomb's problem is normally discussed within the context of instrumental rationality, which everyone agrees is about winning.

Me: I get that and that's one of the main reasons I'm sympathetic to the one-boxing view but the two-boxers has a response to these concerns. The two-boxer agrees that rationality is about winning and they agree that winning means ending up with the most utility. The two-boxer should also agree that the rational decision theory to follow is one that will one-box on all future Newcomb's problems (those where the prediction has not yet occurred) and can also agree that the best timeless agent type is a one-boxing type. However, the two-boxer also claims that two-boxing is the rational decision.

O: Sure, but why think they're right? After all, two-boxers don't win.

M: Okay, those with a two-boxing agent type don't win but the two-boxer isn't talking about agent types. They're talking about decisions. So they are interested in what aspects of the agent's winning can be attributed to their decision and they say that we can attribute the agent's winning to their decision if this is caused by their decision. This strikes me as quite a reasonable way to apportion the credit for various parts of the winning. (Of course, it could be said that the two-boxer is right but they are playing a pointless game and should instead be interested in winning simpliciter rather than winning decisions. If this is the claim then the argument is dissolved and

...
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 19, chapter 88-89 
by Vaniver — 2013-06-30T01:22:02.743Z

This is a new thread to discuss Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality and anything related to it. This thread is intended for discussing chapter 88-89. The previous thread has passed 500 comments.

There is now a site dedicated to the story at hpmor.com, which is now the place to go to find the authors notes and all sorts of other goodies. AdeleneDawner has kept an archive of Author’s Notes. (This goes up to the notes for chapter 76, and is now not updating. The authors notes from chapter 77 onwards are on hpmor.com.)

The first 5 discussion threads are on the main page under the harry_potter tag. Threads 6 and on (including this one) are in the discussion section using its separate tag system. Also: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

Spoiler Warning: this thread is full of spoilers. With few exceptions, spoilers for MOR and canon are fair game to post, without warning or rot13. More specifically:

You do not need to rot13 anything about HP:MoR or the original Harry Potter series unless you are posting insider information from Eliezer Yudkowsky which is not supposed to be publicly available (which includes public statements by Eliezer that have been retracted).

If there is evidence for X in MOR and/or canon then it’s fine to post about X without rot13, even if you also have heard privately from Eliezer that X is true. But you should not post that “Eliezer said X is true” unless you use rot13.
An attempt at a short no-prerequisite test for programming inclination
by ShardPhoenix — 2013-06-29T23:36:06.042Z

There has been previous discussion on LW on the topic of how to quickly determine if someone might be good at programming. This is relevant because this is currently a good career field that can be relatively easy to enter, and because programming-style thinking is often relevant to LW topics (eg decision theory). In light of this I've created the following test, which is based on my memory of a test from an interview process for a programming job. It attempts to test common low-level concepts from programming such as sequence, assignment, indirection, and recursion, in a way that doesn't require any previous programming experience (although previous experience will likely make it easier).

This test is aimed at getting a quick clear positive, so the fact that someone does poorly on it doesn't mean they can't become a programmer (ie I'd guess it's likely to generate false negatives rather than false positives). This test is obviously lacking scientific validation, and is probably too short, but I'd like to start somewhere.

I'd like to invite both programmers and non-programmers to take the test for comparison. It should only take about 5 minutes. If you do the test, please also take the short poll in the comments for feedback and calibration purposes, regardless of what result you got.

----- Test begins below -----

This is a 1-question algorithmic thinking exercise that should take less than 5 minutes.

Pen and paper is required. There should be no prerequisites beyond basic arithmetic.
First, write down the following sequence of numbered boxes. You will be writing numbers in some of the boxes more than once, so either use a pencil or make the boxes big enough to cross out and replace numbers.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Following is a sequence of numbered steps. Do the steps in the order they are numbered (unless instructed otherwise). Note that "write a number in a box" means "cross out the previous number and write the new number".

1. Write 1 in box 3, 2 in box 6, 9 in box 4, 1 in box 5, 5 in box 8, and 0 in the remaining boxes.

2. In box 4, write the sum of the number in box 3 and the number in box 5.

3. In both boxes 2 and 5, wri...
How probable is Molecular Nanotech?
by leplen — 2013-06-29T07:06:38.522Z

Circa a week ago I posted asking whether bringing up molecular nanotechnology(MNT) as a possible threat avenue for an unfriendly artificial intelligence made FAI research seem less credible because MNT seemed to me to be not obviously possible. I was told to some extent, to put up and address the science of MNT or shut up. A couple of people also expressed an interest in seeing a more fact and less PR oriented discussion, so I got the ball rolling and you all have no one to blame but yourselves. I should note before starting, that I do not personally have a strong opinion on whether Drexler-style MNT is possible. This isn't something I've researched previously, and I'm open to being convinced one way or the other. If MNT turns out to be likely at the end of this investigation, then hopefully this discussion can provide a good resource for LW/FAI on the topic for people like myself not yet convinced that MNT is the way of future. As far as I'm concerned, at this point all paths lead to victory.

While Nanosystems was the canonical reference mentioned in the last conversation. I purchased it, then about 2/3rds of the way through this I figured Engines of Creation was giving me enough to work with and cancelled my order. If the science in Nanosystems is really much better than in EoC I can reorder it, but I figured we'd get started for free. 50 bucks is a lot of money to spend on an internet argument.

Before I begin I would like to post the following disclaimers.

1. I am not an expert in many of the claims that border on MNT. I did work at a Nanotechnology center for a year, but that experience was essentially nothing like what Drexler describes. More relevantly I am in the process of completing a Ph.D. in Physics, and my thesis work is on computational modeling of novel materials. I don't really like squishy things, so I'm very much out of my depth when it comes to discussions as to what ribosomes can and cannot accomplish, and I'll happily defer to other authorities on the more biological subjects. With that being said, several of my colleagues run MD simulations of protein folding all day every day, and if a biology issue is particularly important, I can shoot some emails around the department and try and get a more expert opinion.

2. There are several difficulties in precisely addressing Drexler's arguments, because it's not always cle...
Emotional Basilisks
by OrphanWilde — 2013-06-28T21:10:30.007Z

Suppose it is absolutely true that atheism has a negative impact on your happiness and lifespan. Suppose furthermore that you are the first person in your society of relatively happy theists who happened upon the idea of atheism, and moreover found absolute proof of its correctness, and quietly studied its effects on a small group of people kept isolated from the general population, and you discover that it has negative effects on happiness and lifespan. Suppose that it -does- free people from a considerable amount of time wasted - from your perspective as a newfound atheist - in theistic theater.

Would you spread the idea?

This is, in our theoretical society, the emotional equivalent of a nuclear weapon; the group you tested it on is now comparatively crippled with existentialism and doubt, and many are beginning to doubt that the continued existence of human beings is even a good thing. This is, for all intents and purposes, a basilisk, the mere knowledge of which causes its knower severe harm. Is it, in fact, a good idea to go around talking about this revolutionary new idea, which makes everybody who learns it slightly less happy? Would it be a -better- idea to form a secret society to go around talking to bright people likely to discover it themselves to try to keep this new idea quiet?

(Please don't fight the hypothetical here. I know the evidence isn't nearly so perfect that atheism does in fact cause harm, as all the studies I've personally seen which suggest as much have some methodical flaws. This is merely a question of whether "That which can be destroyed by the truth should be" is, in fact, a useful position to take, in view of ideas which may actually be harmful.)
Book: AKA Shakespeare (an extended Bayesian investigation)
by matt — 2013-06-28T16:34:40.933Z

Disclaimer: I have not read this book. I'm posting it in the expectation that others may enjoy it as much as I'm sure I would if I had time to read it myself.

This looks interesting as an extended worked example of Bayesian reasoning (the "scientific approach" of the title).

AKA Shakespeare: A Scientific Approach to the Authorship Question

The goal of AKA Shakespeare is to analyze the Shakespeare Authorship Question in such a way that you, Dear Reader, can review the evidence for yourself and come to your own conclusions. You will be presented with three candidates for the great playwright and poet whom we know as “Shakespeare.” He was either the gentleman from Stratford-upon-Avon (referred to as “Stratford”), Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford (referred to as “Oxford”), or a vague “somebody else” (such as Christopher Marlowe, Henry Neville, etc., referred to as “Ignotus”). The book is built around 25 key questions. Concerning education, for instance, you are asked to infer Shakespeare's education level from his writings, and to compare that with the known (or more-or-less known, or speculated) education levels of Stratford, Oxford, and Ignotus. For each question, you are asked to express your opinions numerically. Rather than say “I strongly believe …,” you say, for instance, “I give 10 to 1 odds that … You then enter your numbers in a chart in the book. Alternatively and preferably, you enter your numbers in the companion website aka-Shakespeare.com which contains a program, “Prospero,” who will process your entries and return your resulting conclusions, expressed as probabilities that Shakespeare was Stratford, or Oxford, or Ignotus. To accommodate a mix of information, debate, and speculation, AKA Shakespeare is written as a dialog involving four fictional characters who meet, drink, and talk in interesting locations—from Napa Valley to Big Sur—in Northern California. Beatrice, a professor of English literature, begins as a committed Stratfordian. Claudia, a detective-story writer, is skeptical. Her husband James (a once-successful engineer, now a less successful vintner) helps to identify the relevant questions. Martin is the scientist who develops and applies the necessary analytical procedures. (To see their portraits and biographies, open u

...
Weekly LW Meetups
by FrankAdamek — 2013-06-28T15:35:02.675Z

This summary was posted to LW main on June 21st. The following week's summary is here.

Irregularly scheduled Less Wrong meetups are taking place in:

Atlanta: Self-Hacking: 23 June 2013 06:00PM
Bratislava Meetup IV.: 24 June 2013 06:00PM
Brussels meetup with HEALES: 13 July 2013 01:00PM
London Social - Exposure to Direct Sunlight - June 23rd: 23 June 2013 02:00PM
[Moscow] How to use your brain: 23 June 2013 04:00PM

The remaining meetups take place in cities with regular scheduling, but involve a change in time or location, special meeting content, or simply a helpful reminder about the meetup:

Austin, TX: 22 June 2019 01:30PM

Locations with regularly scheduled meetups: Austin, Berkeley, Cambridge, MA, Cambridge UK, Madison WI, Melbourne, Mountain View, New York, Ohio, Portland, Salt Lake City, Seattle, Toronto, Vienna, Waterloo, and West Los Angeles. There's also a 24/7 online study hall for coworking LWers.

If you'd like to talk with other LW-ers face to face, and there is no meetup in your area, consider starting your own meetup; it's easy (more resources here). Check one out, stretch your rationality skills, build community, and have fun!

In addition to the handy sidebar of upcoming meetups, a meetup overview will continue to be posted on the front page every Friday. These will be an attempt to collect information on all the meetups happening in the next weeks. The best way to get your meetup featured is still to use the Add New Meetup feature, but you'll now also have the benefit of having your meetup mentioned in a weekly overview. These overview posts will be moved to the discussion section when the new post goes up.

Please note that for your meetup to appear in the weekly meetups feature, you need to post your meetup before the Friday before your meetup!

If you check Less Wrong irregularly, consider subscribing to one or more city-specific mailing list in order to be notified when an irregular meetup is happening: Atlanta, Berlin, Chicago, Helsinki, London, Marin CA, Ottawa, Pittsburgh, Southern California (Los Angeles/Orange County area), St. Louis, Vancouver, Washington, DC.

Whether or not there's currently a meetup in your area, you can sign up to be notified automatically of any future meetups. And if you're not interested in notifications you can still enter your approximate location, which will let meetup-starting ...
Fractals and time management
by saph — 2013-06-28T13:24:38.828Z

As you might know, fractal structures appear in a variety of natural situations and have found many technical applications (see Wikipedia for more information and examples). In this short article I want to ask the question, whether it makes sense to structure various activities according to a 'fractal timetable'?

Cleaning rota

When you have to clean a flat or a house you probably you have seen a list like this before. There are some tasks that one needs to do every day, others come along only once a week or once a month. Aside from those main cleaning tasks, there will be many small things you do several times during a day, like throwing something into the trash bin or washing your hands.

If you analyse the structure of this behaviour, you will find that it looks similar to a one dimensional fractal (compare with the various layers in the construction of the Cantor set, for example).

School Timetables

Most schools that I am familiar with use periodic arrangements for the teaching. You have a weekly timetable and at the same time every week you have the same subject for a whole year. This makes sense from the point of view of teacher and room allocation, but is this the best structure for optimal learning?

My own experience suggests that the quality of my memory strongly depends on my understanding. If I take the time to understand everything, I will remember those things for years and can even reconstruct lost knowledge by using intuition and logical deduction. If I learned something poorly, on the other hand, I sometimes forget it completely in a matter of hours.

Understanding is usually gained by a deep involvement with the topic for a longer period of time. I also find it much easier to learn something if I can focus on it for a certain period of time and examine the object/concept in detail without being disturbed by other matters.

What if the best way of teaching school mathematics (for example) would be to have a 3 week long intense workshop once a year with some other 10 one day sessions allocated once a month and small homework problems evenly distributed throughout the year? The same could be done with the other subjects to fill the full school year.

Other Areas

Our motivation, health and available time fluctuate widely, but most jobs require a periodic commitment. This might be OK for mechanical jobs, but for professions with a substanti...
Vacancy at the Future of Humanity Institute: Academic Project Manager
by Sean_o_h — 2013-06-28T12:17:56.737Z

The Future of Humanity Institute* recently secured funding for a new Research Collaboration with Amlin Insurance focusing on systemic risks associated with risk modelling. We're looking for someone with an academic background or interests and management/organisational abilities to coordinate and develop this project and area of research.

Who we need

This is a unique opportunity to build a world-leading research programme. We’re looking for someone who can not only manage this project, but who also has the drive and initiative to find new sources of funding, network with leading experts, and design future plans for the project. We’re also looking for someone who understands and is motivated by the aims of the FHI; the post-holder will have the opportunity to contribute across the board to FHI projects, and may be a crucial part of the FHI’s success going forward.

It’s a two year position, but there will be the possibility of extension depending on the success of the project and the acquisition of further funding. We can sponsor a visa. All the details can be found here.

Why can you make a big difference in this role?

I’ve spoken to 80,000 hours in the past about the impact a talented person can have in academic project management; this Nature article also talks about the importance of this area of work. MIRI's recent successes are also in part due to the work of some excellent people with the right mix of research understanding and organisation-running ability.

While this is not a research post, your work will increase the success and impact of research done by each one of a team of top-tier academics, and will bring yet more high-quality researchers into the most important fields. This makes this position a way to achieve a huge amount of accumulative good. With a successful funding, development and media strategy, you can contribute to shaping the fields that the FHI is leading the world in.

More on the project

Systemic risks concern the stability of an entire market, and are of great importance to managing large-scale risk. The very methods used to model these phenomena can themselves be a source of systemic risk, especially when they embody hidden assumptions that may not remain reliable in a fast-changing world. The project will focus on gaining a better understanding of systemic risks, particularly as they apply to ca...
Meetup : LW Vienna Meetup #4
by Ratcourse — 2013-06-28T11:08:12.731Z

Discussion article for the meetup : LW Vienna Meetup #4

WHEN:
13 July 2013 03:00:00PM (+0200)

WHERE:
Universitätsstraße 7, 1010 Wien

Rationality goes university take II! Meetup at the NIG, room 2G on the second floor, Universitätsstraße 7, 1010 Wien
Gunther Greindl on what constitutes evidence. Newcomers welcome. FB event: https://www.facebook.com/events/189961624499410/?ref=3

Discussion article for the meetup : LW Vienna Meetup #4