trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
MIRI's 2015 Winter Fundraiser!
by So8res — 2015-12-09T19:00:32.567Z

MIRI's Winter Fundraising Drive has begun! Our current progress, updated live:

Donate Now

Like our last fundraiser, this will be a non-matching fundraiser with multiple funding targets our donors can choose between to help shape MIRI’s trajectory. The drive will run until December 31st, and will help support MIRI's research efforts aimed at ensuring that smarter-than-human AI systems have a positive impact.

Our successful summer fundraiser has helped determine how ambitious we’re making our plans. Although we may still slow down or accelerate our growth based on our fundraising performance, our current plans assume a $1,825,000 annual budget.

About $100,000 of our 2016 budget is being paid for via Future of Life Institute (FLI) grants, funded by Elon Musk and the Open Philanthropy Project. The rest depends on our fundraiser and future grants. We have a twelve-month runway as of January 1, which we would ideally like to extend. Taking all of this into account, our winter funding targets are:

Target 1 — $150k: Holding steady. At this level, we would have enough funds to maintain our runway in early 2016 while continuing all current operations, including running workshops, writing papers, and attending conferences.

Target 2 — $450k: Maintaining MIRI’s growth rate. At this funding level, we would be much more confident that our new growth plans are sustainable, and we would be able to devote more attention to academic outreach. We would be able to spend less staff time on fundraising in the coming year, and might skip our summer fundraiser.

Target 3 — $1M: Bigger plans, faster growth. At this level, we would be able to substantially increase our recruiting efforts and take on new research projects. It would be evident that our donors' support is stronger than we thought, and we would move to scale up our plans and growth rate accordingly.

Target 4 — $6M: A new MIRI. At this point, MIRI would become a qualitatively different organization. With this level of funding, we would be able to diversify our research initiatives and begin branching out from our current agenda into alternative angles of attack on t...
Why startup founders have mood swings (and why they may have uses)
by AnnaSalamon — 2015-12-09T18:59:51.323Z

(This post was collaboratively written together with Duncan Sabien.)

Startup founders stereotypically experience some pretty serious mood swings. One day, their product seems destined to be bigger than Google, and the next, it’s a mess of incoherent, unrealistic nonsense that no one in their right mind would ever pay a dime for. Many of them spend half of their time full of drive and enthusiasm, and the other half crippled by self-doubt, despair, and guilt. Often this rollercoaster ride goes on for years before the company either finds its feet or goes under.

Well, sure, you might say. Running a startup is stressful. Stress comes with mood swings.

But that’s not really an explanation—it’s like saying stuff falls when you let it go. There’s something about the “launching a startup” situation that induces these kinds of mood swings in many people, including plenty who would otherwise be entirely stable.

Moving parts

There are plenty of stressful situations which don’t cause this sort of high-magnitude cycling. Waiting on blood test results from a cancer scare, or applying to prestigious colleges or companies, or working as a subordinate startup employee[1]—these are all demanding, emotionally draining circumstances, but they don’t induce the same sort of cycling.

Contrast those situations with these:

People in the early stages of their first serious romantic relationship (especially those who really really really want it to work, but lack a clear model of how)

People who are deeply serious about personally making a difference in global poverty, space exploration, existential risk, or other world-scale issues

People who are struggling to write their first novel, make their first movie, paint their first masterpiece, or win their first gold medal

... all of which have been known to push people into the same kind of oscillation we see in startup founders. As far as we can tell, there are two factors common to all of these cases: they’re situations in which people must work really, really hard to have any hope of success, and they’re also situations in which people aren’t at all sure what kinds of work will get them there. It’s not a response to high pre...
LessWrong 2.0
by Vaniver — 2015-12-09T18:59:37.232Z

Alternate titles: What Comes Next?, LessWrong is Dead, Long Live LessWrong!

You've seen the articles and comments about the decline of LessWrong. Why pay attention to this one? Because this time, I've talked to Nate at MIRI and Matt at Trike Apps about development for LW, and they're willing to make changes and fund them. (I've even found a developer willing to work on the LW codebase.) I've also talked to many of the prominent posters who've left about the decline of LW, and pointed out that the coordination problem could be deliberately solved if everyone decided to come back at once. Everyone that responded expressed displeasure that LW had faded and interest in a coordinated return, and often had some material that they thought they could prepare and have ready.

But before we leap into action, let's review the problem.

The people still on the LW site are not a representative sample of anything. With the exception of a few people like Stuart Armstrong, they’re some kind of pack of unquiet spirits who have moved in to haunt it after it got abandoned by the founding community members. At this point it’s pretty much diaspora all the way down.

--Yvain on his Tumblr.

One of the problems is that people who control the LW website are running it in pure maintenance mode. LW was put out to pasture -- there have been no changes to functionality in ages.

--Lumifer

LW's strongest, most dedicated writers all seem to have moved on to other projects or venues, as has the better part of its commentariat.

In some ways, this is a good thing. There is now, for example, a wider rationalist blogosphere, including interesting people who were previously put off by idiosyncrasies of Less Wrong. In other ways, it's less good; LW is no longer a focal point for this sort of material. I'm not sure if such a focal point exists any more.

--sixes_and_sevens

This dwindling content can be seen most clearly in the "Top Contributors, 30 Days" display. At the time I write this there are only seven posters with > 100 karma in the past 30 days, and it only takes 58 to appear on the list of 15. Perhaps the question should not be whether the content of LW should be reorganised, but whether LW is fulfilling its desired purpose any longer.

As nearly all the core people who worked the hardest to use this site to promote rationality are no longer contributing

...
Meetup : Washington, D.C.: Sharing Book Excerpts
by RobinZ — 2015-12-09T15:08:59.135Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Washington, D.C.: Sharing Book Excerpts

WHEN:
13 December 2015 03:00:00PM (-0500)

WHERE:
Reynolds Center

x-posted from list. Gathering in courtyard from 3:00pm, hard start 3:30pm - until closing (7:00 pm).

We'll be meeting to read out and discuss excerpts from books.

As always, side conversations are allowed and encouraged.

Upcoming meetups:

Dec. 20: Fun & Games

Dec. 27: Holidays & Socialization

Jan. 3: Meta Meetup

Discussion article for the meetup : Washington, D.C.: Sharing Book Excerpts
Meetup : San Antonio Meetup: Goal Factoring Discussion
by Bryan-san — 2015-12-09T15:08:51.661Z

Discussion article for the meetup : San Antonio Meetup: Goal Factoring Discussion

WHEN:
13 December 2015 02:00:00PM (-0600)

WHERE:
651 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!

~~~

This week's discussion: Goal Factoring CFAR Technique

Discussion article for the meetup : San Antonio Meetup: Goal Factoring Discussion
Meetup : Meetup Racionalidade São Paulo
by leohmarruda — 2015-12-08T14:57:56.711Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Meetup Racionalidade São Paulo

WHEN:
12 December 2015 02:00:00PM (-0200)

WHERE:
Rua Antonio Carlos, 452 São Paulo, Brazil

No novo Vanilla Caffè, novatos são bem-vindos!

Discussion article for the meetup : Meetup Racionalidade São Paulo
LINK: Most of EvoPsych is pseudoscience
by polymathwannabe — 2015-12-08T00:53:40.567Z

The evolutionary origin of human behavior is doubtless a valuable scientific field, but the way the research is currently being conducted raises several concerns.

By request from readers, I've added some excerpts:

EvoPsych’s most common failing is its fallacious methodology, often consisting of not even acknowledging the need to describe, much less pass, any adequate falsification test.

(1) This is most commonly the case in its frequent failure to even confirm that a behavior widely exists cross-culturally [...]

(2) EvoPsych also rarely finds any genetic correlation to a behavior [...]

(3) More problematic still is the rarity of ever even acknowledging the need to rule out accidental (byproduct) explanations of a behavior [...]

(4) And one of the most common confounding factors for creating accidental behavior effects will be the sudden radical changes in our environment caused by civilization and technology.

[...] This makes EvoPsych almost impossible to practice as a genuine science. What it wants to know, is almost always simply impossible to know (at least currently).

First, EvoPsych imagines such a vast repertoire of evolved stimulus-response psychological mechanisms as to require a vast genetic apparatus that simply isn’t found in the human genome.

Second, [...] EvoPsych needs to test the non-adaptive hypothesis for any claim first. It should not be assuming every human behavior is a product of biological adaptation.

[...]

(1) The evidence actually suggests human evolution may operate at a faster pace than EvoPsych requires, such that its assumption of ancient environments being wholly determinative of present biology is false.

(2) “Neuroscientists have been aware since the 1980s that the human brain has too much architectural complexity for it to be plausible that genes specify its wiring in detail,”

(3) “The view that a universal genetic programme underpins human cognition is also not fully consistent with current genetic evidence.”

(4) “Human behavioral genetics has also identified genetic variation underlying an extensive list of cognitive and behavioural characteristics,” thus challenging any claim that certain traits were adaptively selected for—when clearly, after tens of thousands of years, the variance was clearly adaptively selected for.

...
Reflective Probability Distributions and Standard Models of Arithmetic
by IAFF-User-4 — 2015-12-07T22:04:08.000Z

Thanks to Benya for the result and to Rafael for helping write this. This result is included in the latest draft of the new Definability of Truth paper.

Working in the framework presented in Definability of Truth, we prove that every reflective, coherent P is supported only on non-standard models. We construct a finitely additive measure over the language which is supported on standard models and satisfies many of our desiderata. This shows that P's non-standard support is a direct result of requiring countable additivity.

##Background
Note that some of the notation has changed from Definability of Truth: P(φ) is written as P[φ]. This is to distinguish this as a function from the language to the reals, whereas P(A), for some A, is a function from the powerset of the set of all theories to the reals.
Benya has shown that P[φ]=P({T:φ∈T}), so we abuse notation and use the same symbol for both functions.

We now write P for the inner language symbol instead of P, as they are importantly different entities. Recall that P is a function from the language to [0,1], and is a function in the metalanguage. We have modified the definition of P sufficiently that we discuss it in the next section.

P as a three place relation

Since we are now working in the realm of Peano arithmetic, we can weaken our definition of our inner probability distribution.
Instead of defining P as a function in the language, it is sufficient for P to be a three place relation which arbitrarily approximates some metalanguage function.

Definition 1. Let L′ be the extension of the language L (which contains at least the language of arithmetic) by a relation symbol P. A standard theory is a complete theory over L′ which extends the theory of the standard natural numbers (over L) and satisfies the following two conditions: P⊂N3 and
∃f:L′→[0,1] s.t. ∀φ ∀a,b∈Q:P(˙a,┌φ┐,˙b)⟺f(φ)∈(a,b).

Intuitively, P is a three-valued relation which approximates some function f arbitrarily well. We imagine P(˙a,┌φ┐,˙b) to mean that a<f(φ)<b, where f is the function that we require to exist above.

##Disbelief in Standard Theories

We would like to construct coherent, reflective distributions which are supported on standard theories of Peano Arithmetic.
We prove that not only do such distributions not exist, but every coherent, reflective distribution must assign zero probability to any set of standard the

...
Rationalist Magic: Initiation into the Cult of Rationatron
by wizard — 2015-12-07T21:39:27.650Z

I am curious on the perspective of a rationalist discussion board (this seems like a good start) on the practice of magic. I introduce the novel, genius concept of "rationalist magic", i.e. magic practiced by rationalists.

Why would rationalists practice magic? That makes no sense!!

It's the logical conclusion to Making Peace with Belief, Engineering Religion and the self-help threads.
What would that look like?
Good question. Here are some possible considerations to make:

It's given low probability that magic is more than purely mental phenomena. The practice is called "placebomancy" to make it clear that such an explanation is favoured.

It is practiced as a way to gain placebons.

A cult of rationalist magic, the Cult of Rationatron, should be formed to compete against worse (anti-rationality, anti-science, violent) cults.

Rationalist groups can retain more members due to abundance of placebons.

The ultimate goal is to use rationality to devise a logically optimal system of magic with which to build the Philosopher's Stone and fix the world like in HPMOR. (Just kidding, magic isn't real.)

I looked into magical literature and compiled a few placebo techniques/exercises, along with their informal instructions. These might be used as a starting point. If there are any scientific errors these can eventually be corrected. I favoured techniques that can be done with little to no preparation and provide some results. Of course, professional assistance (e.g. yoga classes) can also be helpful.

1. Mindfulness Meditation

(Optional) Do 1-3 deep mouth-exhales to relax.

Find a good position.

Begin by being aware of breath.

(Optional) Move on to calmly observing different parts of the body, vision, the other senses, thoughts, mandala visualization, and so on.

(Optional) Compare the experience to teachings of buddhism.

(Optional) Say "bud-" for each inhale and "-dho" for each exhale; alternatively, count them from 1 to 10 and reset each time.

Note that trying to focus on not focusing isn't always helpful. Hence the common technique is that of focusing on a single thing, or rather, simply being passively aware of it. The goal is to discipline the mind and develop one-pointedness.

2. Astral Projection (OBE)

Lay on a bed, relax.

Try out some of the tips from the previous exercise.

Stay there for 30-60 minutes until you reach the hypnagogic state (a state where the mind is aw

...
NIPS 2015
by Dr_Manhattan — 2015-12-07T20:31:11.779Z

There is a fairly large contingent of safety research oriented people at NIPS this year. I'm unfortunately not among them, but if you're there and interested in connecting with others on AI safety topics or other LW issues - general rationality, EA, etc. I welcome you to make this thread a Schelling point to create meeting opportunities :). You can also PM me I can connect you to people I know are there.
Maximizing Donations to Effective Charities 
by Gleb_Tsipursky — 2015-12-07T18:13:57.484Z

(Cross-posted in The Life You Can Save blog, the Intentional Insights blog, and the EA Forum)

Image credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/61423903@N06/7382239368

Don’t you want your charitable efforts to do the utmost good they can in the world? Imagine how great it feels to know that you’re making the most difference with your gift. Yet how do you figure out how to bring about this outcome? Maximizing the impact of your money requires being intentional and strategic with your giving.

Let me share my personal perspective on giving intentionally. I am really passionate about using an evidence-based approach to do the most good with my donations. I take the time to research causes so that my money and time go to the best charities possible. Moreover, I have taken the Giving What We Can and The Life You Can Save pledges to dedicate a sizable chunk of my income to effective charities. It felt great to take those pledges, and to commit publicly to effective giving throughout my life.

I am proud to identify as an effective altruist: a member of a movement dedicated to combining the heart and the head, using research and science to empower the urges of my emotional desire to make the world a better place. I pay close attention to data-driven charity evaluators such as GiveWell. The large majority of effective altruists closely follow its guidance. GiveWell focuses on charities that do direct activities to improve human life and alleviating suffering and have a clearly measurable impact. One example is Against Malaria Foundation (AMF), one of The Life You Can Save's recommended charities and one of four of GiveWell’s top choice charities for 2015.

Yet while I give to AMF, it and other highly effective charities represent only a small fraction of my donated time and money. This might sound surprising coming from an effective altruist. Why don’t I conform to the standard practice of most effective altruists and donate all of my money and time to these effective, research-based, well-proven charities?

First, let me say that I agree with most effective altruists that reducing poverty via highly effective charities that work directly on poverty alleviation is very worthwhile, and I do make donations to highly effective charities. In fact, this morning I donated enough money for AMF to buy two mosquito bed nets to protect fam

...
Meetup : Baltimore Area Meetup
by iarwain1 — 2015-12-07T16:39:33.676Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Baltimore Area Meetup

WHEN:
03 January 2016 02:00:00PM (-0500)

WHERE:
1852 Reisterstown Rd, Pikesville, MD 21208

Meeting at the Panera Bread in Pikesville. We'll try to meet towards the corner away from the parking lot and to your left as you enter. If you prefer a different time or place please contact me. I'd also appreciate it if you could contact me if you are planning to come.

Meetup time & place are subject to change, so make sure to check back here before you come.

My contact info:

Cell: 443-453-6673 (might not pick up if I don't recognize the number, so leave a message)

Email: nyratynaqre@tznvy.pbz (rot13'd to avoid spam)

Discussion article for the meetup : Baltimore Area Meetup
Open thread, December 7-13, 2015
by polymathwannabe — 2015-12-07T14:47:07.561Z

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-threads page before posting.)

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

4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.
Engineering Religion
by KevinGrant_duplicate0.2409764628391713 — 2015-12-07T13:34:41.219Z

This topic is vague and open-ended. I'm leaving it that way deliberately. Perhaps some interesting, better defined topics will grow out of it. Or perhaps it's too far afield from the concept of less wrong cognition to be of interest here. So I view this topic as exploratory rather than as an attempt to solve a specific problem.
What useful purposes does religion serve? Are any of these purposes non-supernaturalistic in nature? What is success for a religion and what elements of a religion tend to cause it to become successful? How would you design a "rational religion", if such an entity is possible? How and why would a religion with that design become successful and serve a useful purpose? What are the relationships between aspects of a religion, and outcomes involving that religion? For example, Catholicism discourages birth control. Lack of birth control encourages higher birthrates among Catholics. This encourages there to be a larger number of Catholics in the next generation than would otherwise be the case, Surely there are other relationships like this? How do aspects of religion cause them to evolve differently over time?
Mark Zuckerberg plans to give away 99% of his facebook wealth over his lifetime
by ChristianKl — 2015-12-07T00:28:01.254Z

Mark Zuckerberg annouced that he is going to give away 99% of his facebook wealth ($45 billion) over his lifetime.

He announced guiding questions:

Can you learn and experience 100 times more than we do today?
Can our generation cure disease so you live much longer and healthier lives?
Can we connect the world so you have access to every idea, person and opportunity?
Can we harness more clean energy so you can invent things we can't conceive of today while protecting the environment?
Can we cultivate entrepreneurship so you can build any business and solve any challenge to grow peace and prosperity?
Can our generation eliminate poverty and hunger?
Can we provide everyone with basic healthcare?
Can we build inclusive and welcoming communities?
Can we nurture peaceful and understanding relationships between people of all nations?
Can we truly empower everyone -- women, children, underrepresented minorities, immigrants and the unconnected?

It's interesting that "live much longer and healthier lives" is on the list. Larry Page seems to divert money inside Google into Calico for anti-aging tech. Under Cook Apple also invests into health.

The future seems looking good :)