trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Request for advice: high school transferring
by argella42 — 2016-03-01T22:27:56.498Z

UPDATE 3/16/16: I decided to go to public school, because I was tired of all the little annoying stuff at my current school--especially the entitled kids and the entitled attitude in general. Everybody acts like they deserve something. It's very irritating.

The other reason I came to that decision was "exploration value". By moving to a new situation I learn whether I really am better off in the kind of environment offered by the public high school; even if it ends up being worse for me, at least I know what to avoid. If it's good, I know it's good; and if it makes no difference, I know that, too.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I attended public middle school with the same group of kids, so I won't have to worry too much about getting to know new people. I am still in occasional contact with my old friends. I talked to one of them for several hours just yesterday.

(I'm new here, though I've lurked, so if I break any rules or otherwise do something detrimental, please let me know and I will try to correct my mistake)

I currently go to a rather nice independent high school. I'm on significant financial aid, so I can afford it. The academics there are outstanding. However, being a boarding school (I go as a day student) it requests a lot of our free time. We are required to participate in adult-sanctioned activities at least six or seven hours a week, in addition to normal classes. This means that 1. I get home from school around 6pm and 2. (more importantly) it's very hard to socialize when you don't board at the school, and there's really very little besides drama or sports (neither of which I like very much) that people do after school and actually enjoy/make friends in.

I'm strongly considering transferring to my public school, which is unusually good for a public school, as a junior next year. The academics are not as great (classes are less discussion-based and there are not as many APs offered) but there is a strong amount of participation in stuff I might actually enjoy after school (math team, etc.) because we're not required to do anything after school. I've noticed that when people tell me I have to do things, I enjoy them much, much less. Also, I won't have a commute, which would be nice.

Everything else about the schools is more or less comparable.

I'm sure when I think about this decision I am biased in some way. I'm probably succumbing to the sunk cost fa...
Meetup : Washington, D.C.: Designing Games
by RobinZ — 2016-03-01T20:40:28.223Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Washington, D.C.: Designing Games

WHEN:
06 March 2016 03:30:00PM (-0500)

WHERE:
Reynolds Center

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:

Mar. 13: Fun & Games

Mar. 20: Game Theory

Mar. 27: Singing

Discussion article for the meetup : Washington, D.C.: Designing Games
March 2016 Media Thread
by ArisKatsaris — 2016-03-01T20:22:45.431Z

This is the monthly thread for posting media of various types that you've found that you enjoy. Post what you're reading, listening to, watching, and your opinion of it. Post recommendations to blogs. Post whatever media you feel like discussing! To see previous recommendations, check out the older threads.

Rules:

Please avoid downvoting recommendations just because you don't personally like the recommended material; remember that liking is a two-place word. If you can point out a specific flaw in a person's recommendation, consider posting a comment to that effect.

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

Please post only under one of the already created subthreads, and never directly under the parent media thread.

Use the "Other Media" thread if you believe the piece of media you want to discuss doesn't fit under any of the established categories.

Use the "Meta" thread if you want to discuss about the monthly media thread itself (e.g. to propose adding/removing/splitting/merging subthreads, or to discuss the type of content properly belonging to each subthread) or for any other question or issue you may have about the thread or the rules.
The map of nanotech global catastrophic risks
by turchin — 2016-03-01T12:33:31.687Z

Nanotech seems to be smaller risk than AI or biotech, but it advanced form has many ways of omnicide. Nanotech will be probably created after strong biotech, but short before strong AI (or by AI), so the period of vulnerability is rather short. Anyway nanotech has different stages it its future development, mostly dependent on its level of miniaturisation and ability to replicate. To control it in the future will be build some kind of protection shield which may have its own failure modes.

The main reading about the risk is Freitas's article "Some limits to global ecophagy by biovorous nanoreplicators" and "Nanoshield".

Some integration between bio and nanotech has already started in the form of DNA-origami. So may be first nanobots will be bionanobots, like upgraded version of E.coli.

Pdf is here: http://immortality-roadmap.com/nanorisk.pdf
I'm planning a rationalist technique-demonstrating sequel to HPMOR. I know about the Virtue of Silence. Are there any skills I should leave out?
by b_sen — 2016-03-01T04:13:35.107Z

Details and central discussion are here on Reddit, but I want to also reach the part of the LW community that would be interested in weighing in but doesn't regularly use /r/HPMOR or /r/rational. Keeping the discussion centralized on Reddit would be preferred, but if you'd really rather comment / PM here then go for it.
Meetup :  San Antonio Meetup
by Bryan-san — 2016-03-01T01:18:02.456Z

Discussion article for the meetup : San Antonio Meetup

WHEN:
06 March 2016 02:00:00PM (-0600)

WHERE:
12651 Vance Jackson Rd #118, San Antonio, TX 78230

Bubble tea, frozen yogurt, and discussion at Yumi Berry! All are welcome!

New Meetup to discuss rationality and all things LessWrong and meet the local community. Look for the sign that says Less Wrong!

Discussion article for the meetup : San Antonio Meetup
9 Strategies for Effective Donors 
by Gleb_Tsipursky — 2016-02-29T18:33:32.636Z

Summary: This piece is mainly of relevance to EA-oriented Less Wrongers. It provides 9 strategies meant to help donors be more effective. It's prompted by conversations about the desire for more introductory-style pieces on various issues aimed at newer members of the EA movement who are trying to get up to speed on both intellectual and pragmatic issues around becoming full-fledged participants. I welcome you to suggest improvements on the strategies described here, and also add other strategies that you think are important.

Acknowledgments: Thanks to Rhema Hokama for providing feedback on this post. Any mistakes or oversights and I take full responsibility for all opinions expressed here. Versions of this piece will be published on The Life You Can Save blog and the Intentional Insights blog.

Introduction

You're generous and kind. You care about other people and want to help them have great lives. You want to make a positive impact on the world and give from your heart to worthy causes. You're a great person!

Yet there's a niggling feeling of doubt at the back of your head when you donate. How do you know that you're giving to the right causes? How do you know that you're giving the right amount and at the right time? How do you know that your generous gifts of time and money actually have the kind of impact you want on the world?

Yet some donors don't have that doubt. They are confident that they give to the right causes, the right amount, and that they are getting what they paid for with their generosity and kindness. They are effective donors!

What are their secrets? They still listen to their heart -- that's why they want to give in the first place -- but they combine the heart and the head to give effectively and avoid giving regret. You can be an effective donor too, and be truly confident that you're making the best decisions with your giving by following nine simple strategies.

1. Be Intentional

Knowledge is power! Effective donors are intentional about figuring out their aims and strategies for giving. They take the time to sit down and decide what goals they want to achieve through their generosity. They think about the kind of impact they want to have in the world. They decide what causes are most important to them - poverty, disease, animal welfare - and rank them by order of importance. Cons

...
Open Thread Feb 29 - March 6, 2016
by Elo — 2016-02-28T22:11:18.454Z

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threadspage before posting.)

3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.

4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.
Meetup : Ann Arbor Meetup - Saturday, March 5, 7 PM, Amer's
by Bound_up — 2016-02-28T22:01:29.861Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Ann Arbor Meetup - Saturday, March 5, 7 PM, Amer's

WHEN:
05 March 2016 07:00:00PM (-0500)

WHERE:
611 Church St, Ann Arbor, MI 48104

We'll meet at Amer's as last time.

The day is flexible (would Sunday suit some better?), as is the time.

If this is insufficient notice, we can move it forward, too.

For those desirous to do so, we'll be discussing (among other things, no doubt) what any of us would like to do with aspiring rationalists that we can't very well do with others.

Discussion article for the meetup : Ann Arbor Meetup - Saturday, March 5, 7 PM, Amer's
Conclusion of the Replacing Guilt series
by So8res — 2016-02-28T03:00:00.000Z
Link: https://mindingourway.com/guilt-conclusion/

Today marks the end of my series on replacing guilt (table of contents).

I began the series by discussing the "restless guilt," that people feel when some part of them thinks they aren't doing what's important. I argued that it's possible to care about things outside yourself, and things larger than yourself, no matter what a nihilist tells you.

In the second arc of the series I implored readers to drop their obligations and ask themselves where they would put their efforts if there was nothing they felt they "should" be doing. If you can drop your sense of obligation and still care hard for something larger than yourself, you are well on your way to dispensing with guilt-based motivation.

In the third arc, I described techniques for building and maintaining a powerful intrinsic drive without the need to spur yourself with guilt. I point out that working yourself ragged is not a virtue, and that the "work too hard then rest a long time" narrative is a dangerous narrative. We can't always act as we wish we could: We're not yet gods, and it's often easier to change our behavior by exploring obstacles with experimentation and creativity instead of attempting to berate and guilt ourselves into submission. I plea for self compassion and argue that there are no "bad people".

In the fourth arc, I describe ways to draw on the fact that the world around you is broken as fuel for your intrinsic drive. If, when given the choice between "bad" and "worse" you can choose "bad" without suffering; if you can be content in your gambles while having no excuses and coming to terms with the fact that you may fail, then it becomes easy to transmute your guilt into resolve and struggle hard to make the future as bright as you can make it.

In the fifth and final arc, I describe mindsets and mental stances from which guilt seems an alien concept. Primary among them are "confidence all the way up", the skill of believing in your capabilities while not being overly sure of anything; and desperate recklessness defiance, the three dubious virtues of those with strong intrinsic drive.

I conclude with a few words on how we will be measured: When all is said and done, Nature will not judge us by our actions; we will be measured only by what actually happens. Our goal, in the end, is to ensure that the timeless history of our universe is one that is filled with whatever it is we're fighting for....
Goal setting journal (March 2016)
by  — 2016-02-27T09:39:37.638Z

If you have a goal worth setting then it goes here.

Notes for future GSJ posters:

1. Please add the 'gsj' tag.

2. Check if there is an active GSJ thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)

3. GSJ Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.

4. GSJ Threads should run for no longer than 1 week, but you may set goals, subgoals and tasks for as distant into the future as you please.

5. No one is in charge of posting these threads. If it's time for a new thread, and you want a new thread, just create it.
Go see Ex Machina
by lisper — 2016-02-26T21:44:29.096Z

I was a little surprised that no one seems to have plugged this film here yet, but anyone interested in trans-human AI really needs to see Ex Machina. DO NOT expose yourself to any spoilers! It is very important not to know the ending of the film before you see it for it to have its full impact. But I will tell you this: the resemblance of one of the main characters to Eliezer Yudkowsky is probably not coincidental.

Update: apparently I was wrong about the film not being mentioned before. Fwiw I did do a search using the LW site search before posting this and got no results.
Weekly LW Meetups
by FrankAdamek — 2016-02-26T16:38:39.208Z

This summary was posted to Main on February 26th. The following week's summary is here.

Irregularly scheduled Less Wrong meetups are taking place in:

Baltimore Area Meetup: Futurology / Open Discussion: 28 February 2016 03:00PM
Cologne meetup: 27 February 2016 05:00PM
European Community Weekend: 02 September 2016 03:35PM
San Francisco Meetup: Fun and Games: 29 February 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:

Moscow 2nd LW group meetup: 03 March 2016 07:30PM
Seattle Rationality Reading Group: 29 February 2016 06:30PM
Sydney Rationality Dojo - March: 06 March 2016 04:00PM
Vienna: 12 March 2016 03:00PM
Washington, D.C.: Mini Talks: 28 February 2016 03:00PM

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, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Frankfurt, Hels...
If there IS alien super-inteligence in our own galaxy, then what it could be like?
by Coacher — 2016-02-26T11:55:46.779Z

For a moment lets assume there is some alien intelligent life on our galaxy which is older than us and that it have succeeded in creating super-intelligent self-modifying AI.

Then what set of values and/or goals it is plausible for it to have, given our current observations (I.e. that there is no evidence of it`s existence)?

Some examples:

It values non-interference with nature (some kind of hippie AI)

It values camouflage/stealth for it own defense/security purposes.

It just cares about exterminating their creators and nothing else.

Other thoughts?
Is altruistic deception really necessary? Social activism and the free market
by PhilGoetz — 2016-02-26T06:38:16.032Z

I've said before that social reform often seems to require lying. Only one-sided narratives offering simple solutions motivate humans to act, so reformers manufacture one-sided narratives such as we find in Marxism or radical feminism, which inspire action through indignation. Suppose you tell someone, "Here's an important problem, but it's difficult and complicated. If we do X and Y, then after five years, I think we'd have a 40% chance of causing a 15% reduction in symptoms." They'd probably think they had something better to do.

But the examples I used in that previous post were all arguably bad social reforms: Christianity, Russian communism, and Cuban communism.

The argument that people need to be deceived into social reform assumes either that they're stupid, or that there's some game-theoretic reason why social reform that's very worthwhile to society as a whole isn't worthwhile to any individual in society.

Is that true? Or are people correct and justified in not making sudden changes until there's a clear problem and a clear solution to it?

Examples, I think, of good social reform, were the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Those movements didn't require wholesale lying and sleight-of-hand, because they could make valid and true one-sided arguments. It's hard to come up with a good counter-argument to "plantation slavery is bad". Even women's suffrage and Prohibition didn't require lying.

If you're backing a cause which doesn't inspire the action you think it deserves, and you find yourself twisting the truth a bit for dramatic effect, how strong evidence is that that your cause is less worthy than you think it is? Can you give examples where you would go ahead and twist the truth anyway?

For example, if you want to build an asteroid defense system for Earth, and the numbers say that the odds of it being needed in any given human generation are 0.0001%, it might not ever be worth it to any "purely selfish" human to pay the taxes to build that system. I'm ruling that example out, because it is really about the questions of how to discount the future and how to value future human lives. That's a known problem which this angle provides no new insight into.

If you want people to cooperate to reduce risk from AI, or to cure aging, but hardly anyo...
The Philosophical Implications of Quantum Information Theory
by lisper — 2016-02-26T02:00:27.888Z

I was asked to write up a pithy summary of the upshot of this paper. This is the best I could manage.

One of the most remarkable features of the world we live in is that we can make measurements that are consistent across space and time. By "consistent across space" I mean that you and I can look at the outcome of a measurement and agree on what that outcome was. By "consistent across time" I mean that you can make a measurement of a system at one time and then make the same measurement of that system at some later time and the results will agree.

It is tempting to think that the reason we can do these things is that there exists an objective reality that is "actually out there" in some metaphysical sense, and that our measurements are faithful reflections of that objective reality. This hypothesis works well (indeed, seems self-evidently true!) until we get to very small systems, where it seems to break down. We can still make measurements that are consistent across space and time, but as soon as we stop making measurements, then things start to behave very differently than they did before. The classical example of this is the two-slit experiment: whenever we look at a particle we only ever find it in one particular place. When we look continuously, we see the particle trace out an unambiguous and continuous trajectory. But when we don't look, the particle behaves as if it is in more than one place at once, a behavior that manifests itself as interference.

The problem of how to reconcile the seemingly incompatible behavior of physical systems depending on whether or not they are under observation has come to be called the measurement problem. The most common explanation of the measurement problem is the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics which postulates that the act of measurement changes a system via a process called wave function collapse. In the contemporary popular press you will often read about wave function collapse in conjunction with the phenomenon of quantum entanglement, which is usually referred to as "spooky action at a distance", a phrase coined by Einstein, and intended to be pejorative. For example, here's the headline and first sentence of the above piece:

More evidence to support quantum theory’s ‘spooky action at a distance’

It’s one of the strangest concepts in the already strange field of qua

...