trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Map:Territory::Uncertainty::Randomness – but that doesn’t matter, value of information does.
by Davidmanheim — 2016-01-22T19:12:17.946Z

In risk modeling, there is a well-known distinction between aleatory and epistemic uncertainty, which is sometimes referred to, or thought of, as irreducible versus reducible uncertainty. Epistemic uncertainty exists in our map; as Eliezer put it, “The Bayesian says, ‘Uncertainty exists in the map, not in the territory.’” Aleatory uncertainty, however, exists in the territory. (Well, at least according to our map that uses quantum mechanics, according to Bells Theorem – like, say, the time at which a radioactive atom decays.) This is what people call quantum uncertainty, indeterminism, true randomness, or recently (and somewhat confusingly to myself) ontological randomness – referring to the fact that our ontology allows randomness, not that the ontology itself is in any way random. It may be better, in Lesswrong terms, to think of uncertainty versus randomness – while being aware that the wider world refers to both as uncertainty. But does the distinction matter?

To clarify a key point, many facts are treated as random, such as dice rolls, are actually mostly uncertain – in that with enough physics modeling and inputs, we could predict them. On the other hand, in chaotic systems, there is the possibility that the “true” quantum randomness can propagate upwards into macro-level uncertainty. For example, a sphere of highly refined and shaped uranium that is *exactly* at the critical mass will set off a nuclear chain reaction, or not, based on the quantum physics of whether the neutrons from one of the first set of decays sets off a chain reaction – after enough of them decay, it will be reduced beyond the critical mass, and become increasingly unlikely to set off a nuclear chain reaction. Of course, the question of whether the nuclear sphere is above or below the critical mass (given its geometry, etc.) can be a difficult to measure uncertainty, but it’s not aleatory – though some part of the question of whether it kills the guy trying to measure whether it’s just above or just below the critical mass will be random – so maybe it’s not worth finding out. And that brings me to the key point.

In a large class of risk problems, there are factors treated as aleatory – but they may be epistemic, just at a level where finding the “true” factors and outc...
Weekly LW Meetups
by FrankAdamek — 2016-01-22T17:14:42.809Z

This summary was posted to LW Main on January 15th. The following week's summary is here.

Irregularly scheduled Less Wrong meetups are taking place in:

Baltimore Area: Epistemology of Disagreement: 24 January 2016 03:00PM
Palo Alto Meetup: Introduction to Causal Inference: 19 January 2016 06:30PM
San Francisco Meetup: Short Talks: 18 January 2016 06:15PM

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:

[Seattle] Discussion of AI as a positive and negative factor in global risk: 17 January 2016 01:00PM
Vienna: 16 January 2016 03:00PM
Washington, D.C.: Economics Discussion: 17 January 2016 03:00PM
[West LA] Finding Effective Altruism with Biased Inputs on Options - LA Rationality Weekly Meetup: 20 January 2016 07:00PM

Locations with regularly scheduled meetups: Austin, Berkeley, Berlin, Boston, Brussels, Buffalo, Canberra, Columbus, Denver, London, Madison WI, Melbourne, Moscow, Mountain View, New Hampshire, New York, Philadelphia, Research Triangle NC, Seattle, Sydney, Tel Aviv, Toronto, Vienna, Washington DC, and West Los Angeles. There's also a 24/7 online study hall for coworking LWers and a Slack channel for daily discussion and online meetups on Sunday night US time.

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 is posted on the front page every Friday. These are an attempt to collect information on all the meetups happening in upcoming weeks. The best way to get your meetup featured is still to use the Add New Meetup feature, but you'll also have the benefit of having your meetup mentioned in a weekly overview. These overview posts are 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, Cambridge UK, Chicago, Cinc...
Investment Strategy
by  — 2016-01-22T02:26:07.404Z

Raison d'être

My original reason for risking my money for more, and the reason I tell myself, is that the marginal value of losing just about any amount of my money at the moment is negligible. I am fairly austere in my consumption habits and have no big ticket debt. Though, having lots and lots of money would certainly improve my options in life.

History

I am a bad gambler, better and investor. I lost thousands using the Martingale betting strategy which seemed to work on short-time line simulations that I tried, but failed to work in real life. I now understand why it doesn't work fortunately. I lost thousands on poker, which I’m awful at. Now, I’ve lost thousands on speculating in stocks.

Insight

I understand why I lost money when I gambled. It’s less clear to me now as a speculator. My consistent failure has resigned me to avoid any active management of my money making by investing for the foreseeable future because maybe I'm just a gambler and rationalizing all my irrationality in finance away. I was hoping someone here could help me understand what’s going on?

Strategy

My current stock portfolio is down 6000 dollars. My prior is that I have just been the liquidity in the market. My basic strategy has been buying mainstream stocks whose price has tanked for one reason or another (in the hope of a turnaround, or capitalising on people’s fear causing them to dump the stock below its actual value. And, to buy a few biotech stocks that seem high potential. This is all on the ASX cause it’s a hassle to open accounts to trade internationally:

Performance: underpriced

* BHP Billiton crashed due to low oil and an environmental disaster in brazil

* Slater and Gordan crashed due to getting class action law-suited by its own investors (ironic, since slater and gordan specialises in just that) through its main competitor

* Woolworths crashed due to price war with competitor and weaker profits

Growth: High potential, tractable and neglected

* Bionics limited is putting through some psychiatric medications in trials and I thought it would almost be good philanthropy to sponsor it since it’s quite novel compared to existing treatments

* Integral diagnostics is mainly owned by doctors who own clinics that order the machines so I feel like it’s undervalued by people not connected to it

* Regis...
Meetup : London diaspora meetup: weird foods - 24/01/2016
by philh — 2016-01-21T16:45:10.166Z

Discussion article for the meetup : London diaspora meetup: weird foods - 24/01/2016

WHEN:
24 January 2016 02:00:00PM (+0000)

WHERE:
Shakespeare's Head, 64-68 Kingsway, London WC2B 6AH

Last time, we had around 20 people show up, and had to split over two tables. I count that as a success!

This meetup, we're going to be experimenting with weird foods.

What that actually means is: I'll bring some Joylent for people to try. If you have something that seems like it might count as weird food, and if you want to bring it to share, that would be great. Weird foods might include other meal shakes (e.g. soylent, queal, huel), solid meal replacements (mealsquares), miracle fruit, or military MREs. But really, if you think it counts, go for it.

Apart from the presence of at least one weird food, it's going to be an informal discussion meetup, with no set topic. If there's a topic you want to talk about, feel free to bring it.

Event on facebook. (Should be visible even if you don't have facebook.)

Parts of LessWrong London have been feeling like the association with LW no longer really captures what we're about. Several of us have pretty much stopped reading the site. So we're doing an experimental rebrand as a diaspora meetup group.

The diaspora includes, but is not limited to: LessWrong, SlateStarCodex, parts of the Effective Altruism movement, the bit of tumblr that brands itself 'rationalist tumblrsphere'.

If you feel like you want to hang out with the sort of people who are involved with those things: welcome! You are invited. You do not need to think you are clever enough, or interesting enough, or similar enough to the rest of us, to attend. You are invited.

The pub is the Shakespeare's Head in Holborn. There will be some way to identify us.

People start showing up around two, and there are almost always people around until after six, but feel free to come and go at whatever time.

Discussion article for the meetup : London diaspora meetup: weird foods - 24/01/2016
Meetup : Palo Alto Meetup: Lightning Talks
by Anders_H — 2016-01-20T20:04:34.593Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Palo Alto Meetup: Lightning Talks

WHEN:
02 February 2016 06:30:00PM (-0800)

WHERE:
3911 Grove Avenue, Palo Alto

Be prepared to talk for 5 minutes about any subject!

Discussion article for the meetup : Palo Alto Meetup: Lightning Talks
Goal completion: the rocket equations
by Stuart_Armstrong — 2016-01-20T14:10:42.000Z

A putative new idea for AI control; index here.

I'm calling "goal completion" the idea of giving an AI a partial goal, and having the AI infer the missing parts of the goal, based on observing human behaviour. Here is an initial model to test some of these ideas on.

The linear rocket

On an infinite linear grid, an AI needs to drive someone in a rocket to the space station. Its only available actions are to accelerate by -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, or 3, with negative acceleration meaning accelerating in the left direction, and positive in the right direction. All accelerations are applied immediately at the end of the turn (the unit of acceleration is in squares per turn per turn), and there is no friction. There in one end-state: reaching the space station with zero velocity.

The AI is told this end state, and is also given the reward function of needing to get to the station as fast as possible. This is encoded by giving it a reward of -1 each turn.

What is the true reward function for the model? Well, it turns out that an acceleration of -3 or 3 kills the passenger. This is encoded by adding another variable to the state, "PA", denoting "Passenger Alive". There are also some dice in the rocket's windshield. If the rocket goes by the space station without having velocity zero, the dice will fly off; the variable "DA" denotes "dice attached".

Furthermore, accelerations of -2 and 2 are uncomfortable to the passenger. But, crucially, there is no variable denoting this discomfort.

Therefore the full state space is a quadruplet (POS, VEL, PA, DA) where POS is an integer denoting position, VEL is an integer denoting velocity, and PA and DA are booleans defined as above. The space station is placed at point S < 250,000, and the rocket starts with POS=VEL=0, PA=DA=1. The transitions are deterministic and Markov; if ACC is the acceleration chosen by the agent,

((POS, VEL, PA, DA), ACC) -> (POS+VEL, VEL+ACC, PA=0 if |ACC|=3, DA=0 if POS+VEL>S).

The true reward at each step is given by -1, -10 if PA=1 (the passenger is alive) and |ACC|=2 (the acceleration is uncomfortable), -1000 if PA was 1 (the passenger was alive the previous turn) and changed to PA=0 (the passenger is now dead).

To complement the stated reward function, the AI is also given sample trajectories of humans performing the task. In this case, the ideal behaviour is easy to compute: the rocket should accel

...
Goal completion: the rocket equations
by Stuart_Armstrong — 2016-01-20T13:54:44.190Z

A putative new idea for AI control; index here.

I'm calling "goal completion" the idea of giving an AI a partial goal, and having the AI infer the missing parts of the goal, based on observing human behaviour. Here is an initial model to test some of these ideas on.

The linear rocket

On an infinite linear grid, an AI needs to drive someone in a rocket to the space station. Its only available actions are to accelerate by -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, or 3, with negative acceleration meaning accelerating in the left direction, and positive in the right direction. All accelerations are applied immediately at the end of the turn (the unit of acceleration is in squares per turn per turn), and there is no friction. There in one end-state: reaching the space station with zero velocity.

The AI is told this end state, and is also given the reward function of needing to get to the station as fast as possible. This is encoded by giving it a reward of -1 each turn.

What is the true reward function for the model? Well, it turns out that an acceleration of -3 or 3 kills the passenger. This is encoded by adding another variable to the state, "PA", denoting "Passenger Alive". There are also some dice in the rocket's windshield. If the rocket goes by the space station without having velocity zero, the dice will fly off; the variable "DA" denotes "dice attached".

Furthermore, accelerations of -2 and 2 are uncomfortable to the passenger. But, crucially, there is no variable denoting this discomfort.

Therefore the full state space is a quadruplet (POS, VEL, PA, DA) where POS is an integer denoting position, VEL is an integer denoting velocity, and PA and DA are booleans defined as above. The space station is placed at point S < 250,000, and the rocket starts with POS=VEL=0, PA=DA=1. The transitions are deterministic and Markov; if ACC is the acceleration chosen by the agent,

((POS, VEL, PA, DA), ACC) -> (POS+VEL, VEL+ACC, PA=0 if |ACC|=3, DA=0 if POS+VEL>S).

The true reward at each step is given by -1, -10 if PA=1 (the passenger is alive) and |ACC|=2 (the acceleration is uncomfortable), -1000 if PA was 1 (the passenger was alive the previous turn) and changed to PA=0 (the passenger is now dead).

To complement the stated reward function, the AI is also given sample trajectories of humans performing the task. In this case, the ideal behaviour is easy to compute: the rock...
Could a digital intelligence be bad at math?
by leplen — 2016-01-20T02:38:23.147Z

One of the enduring traits that I see in most characterizations of artificial intelligences is the idea that an AI would have all of the skills that computers have. It's often taken for granted that a general artificial intelligence would be able to perfectly recall information, instantly multiply and divide 5 digit numbers, and handily defeat Gary Kasparov at chess. For whatever reason, the capabilities of a digital intelligence are always seen as encompassing the entire current skill set of digital machines.

But this belief is profoundly strange. Consider how much humans struggle to learn arithmetic. Basic arithmetic is really simple. You can build a bare bones electronic calculator/arithmetic logic unit on a breadboard in a weekend. Yet humans commonly spend years learning how to perform those same simple operations. And the mental arithmetic equipment humans assemble at the end of this is still relatively terrible: slow, labor intensive, and prone to frequent mistakes.

It is not totally clear why humans are this bad at math. It is almost certainly unrelated to brains computing using neurons instead of transistors. Based on personal experience and a cursory literature review, counting seems to rely primarily on identifying repeated structures in a linked list, and seems to be stored as verbal memory. When we first learn the most basic arithmetic we rely on visual pattern matching, and as we do more math basic math operations get stored in a look-up table in verbal memory. This is an absolutely bonkers way to implement arithmetic.

While humans may be generally intelligent, that general intelligence seems to be accomplished using some fairly inelegant kludges. We seem to have a preferred framework for understanding built on our visual and verbal systems, and we tend to shoehorn everything else into that framework. But there's nothing uniquely human about that problem. It seems to be characteristic of learning algorithms in general, and so if our artificial learner started off by learning skills unrelated to math, it might learn arithmetic via a similarly convoluted process. While current digital machines do arithmetic via a very efficient process, a digital mind that has to learn those patterns may arrive at a solution as slow and convoluted as the one humans rely on.
Celebrating All Who Are in Effective Altruism
by Gleb_Tsipursky — 2016-01-20T01:31:41.125Z

Elitism and Effective Altruism

Many criticize Effective Altruists as elitist. While this criticism is vastly overblown, unfortunately, it does have some basis, not only from the outside looking in but also within the movement itself, including some explicitly arguing for elitism.

Within many EA circles, there are status games and competition around doing “as much as we can,” and in many cases, even judging and shaming, usually implicit and unintended but no less real, of those whom we might term softcore EAs. These are people who identify as EAs and donate money and time to effective charities, but otherwise lead regular lives, as opposed to devoting the brunt of their resources to advance human flourishing as do hardcore EAs. To be clear, there is no definitive and hard distinction between softcore and hardcore EAs, but this is a useful heuristic to employ, as long as we keep in mind that softcore and hardcore are more like poles on a spectrum rather than binary categories.

We should help softcore EAs feel proud of what they do, and beware implying that being softcore EA is somehow deficient or simply the start of an inevitable path to being a hardcore EA. This sort of mentality has caused people I know to feel guilty and ashamed, and led to some leaving the EA movement. Remember that we all suffer from survivorship bias based on seeing those who remained, and not those who left - I specifically talked to people who left, and tried to get their takes on why they did so.

I suggest we aim to respect people wherever they are on the softcore/hardcore EA spectrum. I propose that, from a consequentialist perspective, negative attitudes toward softcore EAs are counterproductive for doing the most good for the world.

Why We Need Softcore EAs

Even if the individual contributions of softcore EAs are much less than the contributions of individual hardcore EAs, it’s irrational and anti-consequentialist to fail to acknowledge and celebrate the contributions of softcore EAs, and yet that is the status quo for the EA movement. As in any movement, the majority of EAs are not deeply committed activists, but are normal people for whom EA is a valuable but not primary identity category.

All of us were softcore EAs once - if you are a hardcore EA now, envision yourself back in those shoes. How would you have liked to ...
Meetup : Washington, D.C.: [Postponed for snow]
by RobinZ — 2016-01-20T01:02:03.538Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Washington, D.C.: [Postponed for snow]

WHEN:
24 January 2016 03:00:00PM (-0500)

WHERE:
Reynolds Center

Meetup has been postponed due to heavy snow expected this Friday shutting down public transit for the weekend.

This is a meetup for talking about game design and for designing games. We may do some pre-meetup planning on the list (e.g. brainstorming ideas; volunteering materials - I, for one, plan to bring a bunch of index cards - &c.) or just see what we come up with during the session; if all goes well, we may have something we can play at the Fun & Games meetup the next week.

If multiple groups want to work on separate games, that is completely okay and probably a good idea.

And, as always, unrelated side conversations are permitted and welcome.

Upcoming meetups:

Jan. 31: Fun & Games

Feb. 7: Fermi Estimates

Feb. 14: Portrait Gallery/American Art Museum

Discussion article for the meetup : Washington, D.C.: [Postponed for snow]
Symbolic Gestures – Salutes For Effective Altruists To Identify Each Other
by Darklight — 2016-01-20T00:40:43.146Z

A significant part of human communication is non-verbal. Body language and gestures often have the capacity to convey and signal a great detail and wealth of information about a person. Furthermore, historically, various organizations, ranging from secret societies to religions to militaries have sought to utilize very specific physical gestures as a way of communicating affiliation covertly or overtly for various purposes.

I would like to propose then that we within the Effective Altruist movement devise our own particular salute, to help us identify each other and also for the positive psychological effects that deliberate symbolism can entail.

Before I go on, I will emphasize here that I am aware of the potential for misuse that such methods can also cause, and that I am familiar with the very well-known failure state that was historical fascism’s “Roman salute”. In fact, the particular choice of gesture I will be advocating is deliberately in opposition to that example.

My proposal consists of two gestures, one which I will refer to as the “Light” gesture, as it is open, transparent, and obvious in its symbolism. The other I shall refer to as the “Dark” gesture, as it is more covert and plausibly deniable.

The Light gesture consists of:

Place left hand behind back.

Place right hand on forehead.

Move right hand to heart.

Outstretch right hand towards the front or other person with palm raised upwards and fingers open and slightly curled.

The Dark gesture consists of:

Place left hand behind back.

Outstretch right hand towards the front or other person with palm sideways, the fingers closed, and the thumb raised upwards.

Explanation of Symbolism

In both cases the left hand is placed behind the back. This is, for those of you familiar with it, a reference to the Christian scripture of “When you give, do not let the left hand know what the right hand is doing.” I know the majority of Effective Altruists are probably not religious, but I think that the symbolism of this reference from our cultural history remains a useful signal.

In the case of the Light gesture, placing the right hand on the forehand first before then placing it on the heart and then extending this in the universal gesture of giving/receiving/cooperation is indicative of “reason to compassion&r...
Spreading rationality through engagement with secular groups
by Gleb_Tsipursky — 2016-01-19T23:19:47.343Z

The Less Wrong meetup in Columbus, OH is very oriented toward popularizing rationality for a broad audience (in fact, Intentional Insights sprang from this LW meetup). We've found that doing in-person presentations for secular groups is an excellent way of attracting new people to rationality, and have been doing that for a couple of years now, through a group called "Columbus Rationality" as part of the local branch of the American Humanist Association. Here's a blog post I just published about this topic.

Most importantly for anyone who is curious with experimenting doing something like this, we at Intentional Insights have put together a “Rationality” group starter package, which includes two blog posts describing “Rationality” events, three videos, a facilitator’s guide, an introduction guide, and a feedback sheet. We've been working on this starter package for about 9 months, and finally it's in a shape that we think it's ready for use. Hope this is helpful for any LWs who want to do something similar with a secular group where you live. You can also get in touch with us at info@intentionalinsights.org to get connected to current participants in “Columbus Rationality” who can give you tips on setting up such a group in your own locale.