trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
A Review of Signal Data Science
by The_Jaded_One — 2016-08-14T15:32:45.946Z

I took part in the second signal data science cohort earlier this year, and since I found out about Signal through a slatestarcodex post a few months back (it was also covered here on less wrong), I thought it would be good to return the favor and write a review of the program.

The tl;dr version:

Going to Signal was a really good decision. I had been doing teaching work and some web development consulting previous to the program to make ends meet, and now I have a job offer as a senior machine learning researcher1. The time I spent at signal was definitely necessary for me to get this job offer, and another very attractive data science job offer that is my "second choice" job. I haven't paid anything to signal, but I will have to pay them a fraction of my salary for the next year, capped at 10% and a maximum payment of $25k.

The longer version:

Obviously a ~12 week curriculum is not going to be a magic pill that turns a nontechnical, averagely intelligent person into a super-genius with job offers from Google and Facebook. In order to benefit from Signal, you should already be somewhat above average in terms of intelligence and intellectual curiosity. If you have never programmed and/or never studied mathematics beyond high school2 , you will probably not benefit from Signal in my opinion. Also, if you don't already understand statistics and probability to a good degree, they will not have time to teach you. What they will do is teach you how to be really good with R, make you do some practical machine learning and learn some SQL, all of which are hugely important for passing data science job interviews. As a bonus, you may be lucky enough (as I was) to explore more advanced machine learning techniques with other program participants or alumni and build some experience for yourself as a machine learning hacker.

As stated above, you don't pay anything up front, and cheap accommodation is available. If you are in a situation similar to mine, not paying up front is a huge bonus. The salary fraction is comparatively small, too, and it only lasts for one year. I almost feel like I am underpaying them.

This critical comment by fluttershy almost put me off, and I'm glad it didn't. The program is not exactly "self-directed" - there is a daily schedule and a clear path to work through, though they are flexible about it. Admittedly there isn't a cons...
Help with Bayesian priors
by WikiLogicOrg — 2016-08-14T10:24:05.989Z

I posted before about an open source decision making web site I am working on called WikiLogic. The site has a 2 minute explanatory animation if you are interested. I wont repeat myself but the tl;dr is that it will follow the Wikipedia model of allowing everyone to collaborate on a giant connected database of arguments where previously established claims can be used as supporting evidence for new claims.

The raw deduction element of it works fine and would be great in a perfect world where such a thing as absolute truths existed, however in reality we normally have to deal with claims that are just the most probable. My program allows opposing claims to be connected and then evidence to be gathered for each. The evidence will create a probability of it being correct and which ever is highest, gets marked as best answer. Principles such as Occams Razor are applied automatically as long list of claims used as evidence will be less likely as each claim will have its own likelihood which will dilute its strength.

However, my only qualification in this area is my passion and I am hitting a wall with some basic questions. I am not sure if this is the correct place to get help with these. If not, please direct me somewhere else and I will remove the post.

The arbitrarily chosen example claim I am working with is whether “Alexander the Great existed”. This has the useful properties of 1: an expected outcome (that he existed - although, perhaps my problem is that this is not the case!) and 2: it relies heavily on probability as there is little solid evidence.

One popular claim is that coins were minted with his face on them. I want to use Bayes to find how likely a face appearing on a coin is for someone who existed. As I understand it, there should be 4 combinations:

Existed; Had a coin minted

Existed; Did not have a coin minted

No Existed; Had a coin minted

No Existed; Did not have a coin minted

The first issue is that there are infinite people who never existed and did not have a coin made. If I narrow it to historic figures who turned out not to exist and did not have a coin made it becomes possible but also becomes subjective as to whether someone actually thought they existed. For example, did people believe the Minotaur existed?

Perhaps I should choose another filter instead of historic figure, like humans that existed. But picking ...
New LW Meetup: Munich
by FrankAdamek — 2016-08-12T15:51:07.156Z

This summary was posted to LW Main on August 12th. The following week's summary is here.

New meetups (or meetups with a hiatus of more than a year) are happening in:

Bay City Meetup: 19 August 2016 01:25PM
Munich Meetup in August: 13 August 2016 01:00PM

Irregularly scheduled Less Wrong meetups are taking place in:

Australian-ish Online Hangout: 20 August 2016 07:30PM
Baltimore Area Weekly Meetup: 14 August 2016 08:00PM
European Community Weekend: 02 September 2016 03:35PM

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] Welcome Scott Aaronson to Texas: 13 August 2016 06:00PM
San Francisco Meetup: Group Debugging: 15 August 2016 06:15PM
Sydney Rationality Dojo - September 2016: 04 September 2016 04:00PM
Sydney Rationality Dojo - October 2016: 02 October 2016 04:00PM
Washington, D.C.: TED Talks: 14 August 2016 03:30PM

Locations with regularly scheduled meetups: Austin, Berlin, Boston, Brussels, Buffalo, Canberra, Columbus, Denver, Kraków, London, Madison WI, Melbourne, Moscow, New Hampshire, New York, Philadelphia, Research Triangle NC, San Francisco Bay Area, 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 ci...
"Is Science Broken?" is underspecified
by NancyLebovitz — 2016-08-12T11:59:39.834Z

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/

This is an interesting article-- it's got an overview of what's currently seen as the problems with replicability and fraud, and some material I haven't seen before about handing the same question to a bunch of scientists, and looking at how they come up with their divergent answers.
However, while I think it's fair to say that science is really hard, the article gets into claiming that scientists aren't especially awful people (probably true), but doesnn't address the hard question of "Given that there's a lot of inaccurate science, how much should we trust specific scientific claims?"
Applicable advice
by Elo — 2016-08-12T08:16:09.999Z

Original post: http://bearlamp.com.au/applicable-advice/
Part 2: http://bearlamp.com.au/addendum-to-applicable-advice/
Part 2 on lesswrong: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/nuf/addendum_to_applicable_advice/

Einstein said, "If I had an hour to solve a problem I'd spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and 5 minutes thinking about solutions."

The Feynman Algorithm:
Write down the problem.
Think real hard.
Write down the solution.

There is a lot of advice out there on the internet. Any topic you can consider; there is probably advice about. The trouble with advice is that it can be just as often wrong as it is right. Often when people write advice; they are writing about what has worked for them in a very specific set of circumstances. I'm going to be lazy and use an easy example several times here - weight loss, but the overarching concept applies to any type of advice.

Generic: "eat less and exercise more" (obvious example is obvious)

Dieting as a problem is a big and complicated one. But the advice is probably effective to someone. Take any person who is looking to lose weight and this advice is probably applicable. Does this make it good advice? Heck no! It's atrocious. If that's all the dieting advice we needed we wouldn't invent diets like Atkins, Grapefruit, 2&5, low carb and more.

So what does, "starve for two days a week", have to it that "eat less and exercise more" doesn't? Why does the damn advice exist?

Advice like, "eat less and exercise more", is likely to work on someone in the situation of:
1. Eating too much
and
2. not exercising enough.
and
3. having those behaviours for no reason
and
4. having the willpower and desire to change those behaviours
and
5. never do them again.
and
6. the introspection to identify the problem as that, and start now.

With this understanding of the advice, you can say that this advice applies to some situations and not others. Hence the concept of "applicable advice".

Given that the advice, "eat less and exercise more" exists, if you take the time to understand why it exists and how it works; you can better take advantage of what it offers.

Understand that if this advice worked for someone there was a way that it worked for that someone. And considering if there is a way to make it work for someone, you can maybe find a way to make it work for you too.

...
Filter on the way in, Filter on the way out...
by Elo — 2016-08-12T07:24:49.201Z

Original post: http://bearlamp.com.au/filter-on-the-way-in-filter-on-the-way-out/

I'd like to quote tact filters by Jeff Bigler:

All people have a "tact filter", which applies tact in one direction to everything that passes through it. Most "normal people" have the tact filter positioned to apply tact in the outgoing direction. Thus whatever normal people say gets the appropriate amount of tact applied to it before they say it. This is because when they were growing up, their parents continually drilled into their heads statements like, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all!"

"Nerds," on the other hand, have their tact filter positioned to apply tact in the incoming direction. Thus, whatever anyone says to them gets the appropriate amount of tact added when they hear it. This is because when nerds were growing up, they continually got picked on, and their parents continually drilled into their heads statements like, "They're just saying those mean things because they're jealous. They don't really mean it."

When normal people talk to each other, both people usually apply the appropriate amount of tact to everything they say, and no one's feelings get hurt. When nerds talk to each other, both people usually apply the appropriate amount of tact to everything they hear, and no one's feelings get hurt. However, when normal people talk to nerds, the nerds often get frustrated because the normal people seem to be dodging the real issues and not saying what they really mean. Worse yet, when nerds talk to normal people, the normal people's feelings often get hurt because the nerds don't apply tact, assuming the normal person will take their blunt statements and apply whatever tact is necessary.

So, nerds need to understand that normal people have to apply tact to everything they say; they become really uncomfortable if they can't do this. Normal people need to understand that despite the fact that nerds are usually tactless, things they say are almost never meant personally and shouldn't be taken that way. Both types of people need to be extra patient when dealing with someone whose tact filter is backwards relative to their own.

Later edit for clarification: I don't like the Nerd|Normal dichotomy because those words have various histories and baggage associated with them, so I renamed them (Stater, listener, Launch filter, Landi...
Inverse cryonics: one weird trick to persuade anyone to sign up for cryonics today!
by The_Jaded_One — 2016-08-11T17:29:38.399Z

OK, slight disclaimer, this is a bit of a joke article inspired by me watching a few recent videos and news reports about cryonics. Nevertheless, there is a serious side to it.

Many people claim that it is irrational to sign up for cryonics, and getting into the nitty gritty with them about how likely it is to work seems to turn into a series of small skirmishes with no particular "win condition". Opponents will not say,

"OK, I will value my life at $X and if you can convince me that (cryonics success probability)*$X is greater than the $1/day fee, I will concede the argument".

Rather, they will retreat to a series of ever harder to falsify positions, usually ending up at a position which is so vague that it is basically pure mood affiliation and acts as a way to stop the conversation rather than as a true objection. I have seen it many times with friends.

So, I propose that before you debate someone about cryonics, you should first try to sign then up for inverse cryonics. Inverse cryonics is a very simple procedure, fully scientifically tested that anyone can sign up for today, as long as they have a reasonably well-off benefactor to take the "other side" of the bet. Let me explain.

The inverse cryonics patient takes a simple revolver with 6 barrels, with one bullet loaded and spins the barrel on the gun, then shoots themselves once in the head1. If the inverse cryonaut is unlucky enough to shoot themselves with a barrel containing a real bullet, they will blow their brains out and die instantly and permanently. However, if they are lucky, the benefactor must pay them $1 per day for the rest of their lives.

Obviously you can vary the risk, rewards and timings of inverse cryonics. The death event could be postponed for 20 years, the risk could be cranked up or down, and the reward could be increased or decreased or paid out as a future discounted lump sum. The key is that signing up for inverse cryonics should be mathematically identical to not signing up for cryonics.

As a baseline, cryonics seems to cost ~$1/day for the rest of your life in order to avoid a ~1/10 chance of dying2. Most people3 would not play ~10-barrel Russian Roulette for a $1/day stipend, even with delayed death or an instant ~$50k payout.

In fact,

if you believe that cryonics costs ~$1/day for the rest of your life in order to avoid a ~1/10 chance of dying4 &n

...
Meetup : Washington, D.C.: TED Talks
by RobinZ — 2016-08-11T16:52:39.988Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Washington, D.C.: TED Talks

WHEN:
14 August 2016 03:30:00PM (-0400)

WHERE:
Mosaic at Metro Apartments

This week, we will be meeting at the home of one of the meetup regulars (6210 Belcrest Road Apt 1131) to watch TED talks. Directions have been posted to the meetup announcement in the Google Groups thread.

As always, side conversations are allowed and encouraged.

Upcoming meetups:

Aug. 21: Mini Talks

Aug. 28: Legos

Sep. 4: Fun & Games

Discussion article for the meetup : Washington, D.C.: TED Talks
Meetup : Baltimore Area Weekly Meetup
by iarwain1 — 2016-08-11T16:47:27.711Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Baltimore Area Weekly Meetup

WHEN:
14 August 2016 08:00:00PM (-0400)

WHERE:
1726 reisterstown road pikesville maryland 21208

Pikesville DoubleTree - Hilton, at the restaurant / bar or at one of the tables outside.

Discussion article for the meetup : Baltimore Area Weekly Meetup
Mental models - giving people personhood and taking it away
by Elo — 2016-08-11T08:32:34.401Z

Original post: http://bearlamp.com.au/giving-people-personhood-and-taking-it-away

This post is about the Kegan levels of self development. If you don't know what that is, this post might still be interesting to you but you might be missing some key structure to understand where it fits among that schema. More information can be found here (https://meaningness.wordpress.com/2015/10/12/developing-ethical-social-and-cognitive-competence/)

I am not ready to definitely accept the Kegan levels as a useful model because often it makes retrospective predictions. Rather than predictions of the future. A model is only as useful as what it can predict, so if it can't be used on the fly when you want to explain the universe you might as well throw it out. Having said that, this idea is interesting.

When I was little, people fell into different categories. There was my parents - the olderClass humans (going to refer to them as Senior-humans), my siblings - which, as I grew up turned into my age-group humans and through school - my peergroup humans.

People like doctors fell into SeniorClass, Dentists, Vets, Plumbers, PIC (People In Charge) - all fell into the SeniorClass of humans. A big one was teachers - they were all PIC. A common trope among children is that the teachers sleep at school. Or to use a gaming term - we feel as though they are the NPC's of that part of our journey in life.

As far as I can tell (from trying to pinpoint this today); the people I meet on my own terms become peergroup humans. Effectively friends. People I meet not on my terms; as well as strangers - first join some kind of seniorclass of humans, if I get to know them enough they transition to my peergroup. Of course this is a bit strange because on the one hand I imagine I want to be friends with the PIC, or the senior-class humans because of the opportunity to get ahead in life. the good ol' I know a guy who know's a guy. Which is really not what a peergroup constitutes.

Peergroup humans are not "A guy with skills" much as we might hope for; they are (hopefully) all at our own, or near our own skill level. (on Kegan's stage 3) people who's opinions and ideas we care about because they are similar to us.

Recently I have noticed events that have taken some of my long term SeniorClass and shift...
Meetup : SF Meetup: Group Debugging
by maia — 2016-08-11T04:59:20.298Z

Discussion article for the meetup : SF Meetup: Group Debugging

WHEN:
15 August 2016 06:15:10PM (-0700)

WHERE:
SF

UPDATE: This meetup's location has been changed. This meetup will now be held outside, at the courtyard behind the Market on Market. Here's a map to the approximate location: https://map.what3words.com/slick.delay.toward The courtyard is accessible to pedestrians from the east side of 10th St., or by walking through The Market from Market St. You can call the same phone number if you're having any problems locating us.

We’ll be meeting to solve each other’s problems!

Here's how it works: we’ll have everyone brainstorm silently for a few minutes, then go around and summarize what problems we might like to work on; then people can break up into smaller conversations according to problems they think they could be most helpful with. This format is now what I'd call "tried and true".

For help getting into the building, please call (or text, with a likely-somewhat-slower response rate): three zero one, three five six, five four two four.

Format:

We meet and start hanging out at 6:15, but don’t officially start doing the meetup topic until 6:45-7 to accommodate stragglers. Usually there is a food order that goes out before we start the meetup topic.

About these meetups:

The mission of the SF LessWrong meetup is to provide a fun, low-key social space with some structured interaction, where new and non-new community members can mingle and have interesting conversations.
Everyone is welcome.

We explicitly encourage people to split off from the main conversation or diverge from the topic if that would be more fun for them (moving side conversations into a separate part of the space if appropriate). Meetup topics are here as a tool to facilitate fun interaction, and we certainly don’t want them to inhibit it.

Discussion article for the meetup : SF Meetup: Group Debugging
Setting up my work environment - Doing the causation backwards 
by Elo — 2016-08-11T02:36:18.139Z

Original post: http://bearlamp.com.au/doing-the-causation-backwards/

About two years ago, when I first got my smart phone (yes, later than most of the other humans). I was new to apps, and I was new to environments. When I decided on what apps should be on my home screen, I picked the ones that I thought I would use most often.

My home screen started with:

google bar (the top of the page)

calendar

facebook

notepad app (half the page)

ingress (because I play)

maps

camera

torch

My home screen has barely changed. I don't play ingress very often these days, but that's by choice, however I was seeing the facebook notifications far too often. Ending up on facebook far too often for what I wanted.

Recently I decided to try out some tracking systems that include 1/0 metrics. It looks something like this:

I wanted this in a place where I could see it and fill it out every day, and at the same time I began to question why I have my facebook app on my front page. This link is now on my front page and I easily fill it out once a day (a win for a habit successfully implemented).

The concept that I want to impart today is that the causation goes the wrong way. Instead of wanting apps that I regularly use on my front page so that I can easily access them - I want apps that I want to use regularly on my front page. That way I will tend to develop habits of regularly using them instead of the other ones.

Fridge

This applies to the refrigerator too. Instead of the things you use and eat all the time being at the front (assuming they might be different), you want the foods that you want to eat most readily accessible and at the front. If this means healthy foods at the front - do that. If this means having a fruit bowl on the table - do that.

TV

This applies to TV too. If you find book-reading more interesting than TV watching but find yourself watching a lot of TV all the same; put the remotes in a harder to reach place and leave really good books lying around.

Computer shortcuts

Want to play less games? Get to Reddit less? Maybe put the games in slightly harder to access places. Buried in other folders. Delete the auto-fill in your browser that completes to Reddit. Want to do equations by hand more often than using a calculator ...