trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Look for the Next Tech Gold Rush?
by Wei Dai — 2014-07-19T10:08:53.127Z

In early 2000, I registered my personal domain name weidai.com, along with a couple others, because I was worried that the small (sole-proprietor) ISP I was using would go out of business one day and break all the links on the web to the articles and software that I had published on my "home page" under its domain. Several years ago I started getting offers, asking me to sell the domain, and now they're coming in almost every day. A couple of days ago I saw the first six figure offer ($100,000).

In early 2009, someone named Satoshi Nakamoto emailed me personally with an announcement that he had published version 0.1 of Bitcoin. I didn't pay much attention at the time (I was more interested in Less Wrong than Cypherpunks at that point), but then in early 2011 I saw a LW article about Bitcoin, which prompted me to start mining it. I wrote at the time, "thanks to the discussion you started, I bought a Radeon 5870 and started mining myself, since it looks likely that I can at least break even on the cost of the card." That approximately $200 investment (plus maybe another $100 in electricity) is also worth around six figures today.

Clearly, technological advances can sometimes create gold rush-like situations (i.e., first-come-first-serve opportunities to make truly extraordinary returns with minimal effort or qualifications). And it's possible to stumble into them without even trying. Which makes me think, maybe we should be trying? I mean, if only I had been looking for possible gold rushes, I could have registered a hundred domain names optimized for potential future value, rather than the few that I happened to personally need. Or I could have started mining Bitcoins a couple of years earlier and be a thousand times richer.

I wish I was already an experienced gold rush spotter, so I could explain how best to do it, but as indicated above, I participated in the ones that I did more or less by luck. Perhaps the first step is just to keep one's eyes open, and to keep in mind that tech-related gold rushes do happen from time to time and they are not impossibly difficult to find. What other ideas do people have? Are there other past examples of tech gold rushes besides the two that I mentioned? What might be some promising fields to look for them in the future?
Effective Writing
by diegocaleiro — 2014-07-18T20:45:09.961Z

Granted, writing is not very effective. But some of us just love writing...

Earning to Give Writing: Which are the places that pay 1USD or more dollars per word?

Mind Changing Writing: What books need being written that can actually help people effectively change the world?

Clarification Writing: What needs being written because it is only through writing that these ideas will emerge in the first place?

Writing About Efficacy: Maybe nothing else needs to be written on this.

What should we be writing about if we have already been, for very long, training the craft? What has not yet been written, what is the new thing?

The world surely won't save itself through writing, but it surely won't write itself either.
Be Wary of Thinking Like a FAI
by kokotajlod — 2014-07-18T20:22:00.460Z

I recently realized that, encouraged by LessWrong, I had been using a heuristic in my philosophical reasoning that I now think is suspect. I'm not accusing anybody else of falling into the same trap; I'm just recounting my own situation for the benefit of all.
I actually am not 100% sure that the heuristic is wrong. I hope that this discussion about it generalizes into a conversation about intuition and the relationship between FAI epistemology and our own epistemology.
The heuristic is this: If the ideal FAI would think a certain way, then I should think that way as well. At least in epistemic matters, I should strive to be like an ideal FAI.

Examples of the heuristic in use are:

--The ideal FAI wouldn't care about its personal identity over time; it would have no problem copying itself and deleting the original as the need arose. So I should (a) not care about personal identity over time, even if it exists, and (b) stop believing that it exists.
--The ideal FAI wouldn't care about its personal identity at a given time either; if it was proven that 99% of all observers with its total information set were in fact Boltzmann Brains, then it would continue to act as if it were not a Boltzmann Brain, since that's what maximizes utility. So I should (a) act as if I'm not a BB even if I am one, and (b) stop thinking it is even a meaningful possibility.
--The ideal FAI would think that the specific architecture it is implemented on (brains, computers, nanomachines, giant look-up tables) is irrelevant except for practical reasons like resource efficiency. So, following its example, I should stop worrying about whether e.g. a simulated brain would be conscious.
--The ideal FAI would think that it was NOT a "unified subject of experience" or an "irreducible substance" or that it was experiencing "ineffable, irreducible quale," because believing in those things would only distract it from understanding and improving its inner workings. Therefore, I should think that I, too, am nothing but a physical mechanism and/or an algorithm implemented somewhere but capable of being implemented elsewhere.
--The ideal FAI would use UDT/TDT/etc. Therefore I should too.

--The ideal FAI would ignore uncomputable possibilities. Therefore I should too.
...
Arguably, most if not all of the conclusions I drew in the above are actually correct. However, I think that the heuristic is questionable, for...
Weekly LW Meetups
by FrankAdamek — 2014-07-18T16:25:09.264Z

This summary was posted to LW main on July 11th. The following week's summary is here.

Irregularly scheduled Less Wrong meetups are taking place in:

Australia - Online Hangout: 13 July 2014 06:30PM

Frankfurt: Goal Factoring: 20 July 2014 02:00PM

Houston, TX: 12 July 2014 02:00PM

[Portland] Calibration Training and Potluck - Portland: 12 July 2014 06:31PM

Upper Canada LW Megameetup: Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Waterloo, London: 18 July 2014 07:00PM

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

Brussels - July meetup: 12 July 2014 01:00PM

Brussels - August (topic TBD): 09 August 2014 01:00PM

Canberra: Paranoid Debating: 12 July 2014 06:00PM

London social meetup - possibly in a park: 13 July 2014 02:00PM

Sydney Meetup - July: 23 July 2014 07:00PM

Washington, D.C.: Prisoner's Dilemna tournament: 13 July 2014 03:00PM

Locations with regularly scheduled meetups: Austin, Berkeley, Berlin, Boston, Brussels, Buffalo, Cambridge UK, Canberra, Columbus, London, Madison WI, Melbourne, Mountain View, New York, Philadelphia, Research Triangle NC, Salt Lake City, Seattle, Sydney, Toronto, Vienna, Washington DC, Waterloo, and West Los Angeles. There's also a 24/7 online study hall for coworking LWers.

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

In addition to the handy sidebar of upcoming meetups, a meetup overview 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, Chicago...
[LINK] Another "LessWrongers are crazy" article - this time on Slate
by CronoDAS — 2014-07-18T04:57:55.778Z

WARNING: Memetic hazard.
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/07/roko_s_basilisk_the_most_terrifying_thought_experiment_of_all_time.html?wpisrc=obnetwork
Is there anything we should do?
Meetup :  MIRIxAtlanta: 19 July 2014
by Adele_L — 2014-07-18T04:04:11.051Z

Discussion article for the meetup : MIRIxAtlanta: 19 July 2014

WHEN:
19 July 2014 06:00:00PM (-0400)

WHERE:
2388 Lawrenceville Hwy. Unit L, Decatur, GA 30033

We'll be having the first MIRIx in Atlanta - please come if you are interested in math, programming, or AI. One research program at MIRI is to develop better theoretical foundations for making decisions under uncertainty. We'll look at some recent progress in this field, discuss open problems, and explore possible research directions.

Recommended Reading:
Summary of problems: http://intelligence.org/research/#decision
Robust Cooperation: http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5577

P.S. There will be snacks!

Discussion article for the meetup : MIRIxAtlanta: 19 July 2014
Meetup : Washington DC: Short Talks
by RobinZ — 2014-07-18T01:02:05.926Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Washington DC: Short Talks

WHEN:
20 July 2014 03:00:00PM (-0400)

WHERE:
National Portrait Gallery, Washington, DC

We will be meeting in the Kogod Courtyard to take turns presenting short (~10-20 minute) lectures on random topics.

(For newcomers: the courtyard is in the center of the building, and may be reached from either entrance by walking through the doors on the far side of the information desk.)

Discussion article for the meetup : Washington DC: Short Talks
The Correct Use of Analogy
by SilentCal — 2014-07-16T21:07:28.239Z

In response to: Failure by Analogy, Surface Analogies and Deep Causes

Analogy gets a bad rap around here, and not without reason. The kinds of argument from analogy condemned in the above links fully deserve the condemnation they get. Still, I think it's too easy to read them and walk away thinking "Boo analogy!" when not all uses of analogy are bad. The human brain seems to have hardware support for thinking in analogies, and I don't think this capability is a waste of resources, even in our highly non-ancestral environment. So, assuming that the linked posts do a sufficient job detailing the abuse and misuse of analogy, I'm going to go over some legitimate uses.

The first thing analogy is really good for is description. Take the plum pudding atomic model. I still remember this falsified proposal of negative 'raisins' in positive 'dough' largely because of the analogy, and I don't think anyone ever attempted to use it to argue for the existence of tiny subnuclear particles corresponding to cinnamon.

But this is only a modest example of what analogy can do. The following is an example that I think starts to show the true power: my comment on Robin Hanson's 'Don't Be "Rationalist"'. To summarize, Robin argued that since you can't be rationalist about everything you should budget your rationality and only be rational about the most important things; I replied that maybe rationality is like weightlifting, where your strength is finite yet it increases with use. That comment is probably the most successful thing I've ever written on the rationalist internet in terms of the attention it received, including direct praise from Eliezer and a shoutout in a Scott Alexander (yvain) post, and it's pretty much just an analogy.

Here's another example, this time from Eliezer. As part of the AI-Foom debate, he tells the story of Fermi's nuclear experiments, and in particular his precise knowledge of when a pile would go supercritical.

What do the above analogies accomplish? They provide counterexamples to universal claims. In my case, Robin's inference that rationality should be spent sparingly proceeded from the stated premise that no one is perfectly rational about anything, and weightlifting was a counterexample to the implicit claim 'a finite capacity should always be directed solely towards important goals'. If you look above my com...
Meetup : Canberra: Intro to Anthropic Reasoning
by DanielFilan — 2014-07-16T13:10:40.109Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Canberra: Intro to Anthropic Reasoning

WHEN:
25 July 2014 06:00:00PM (+1000)

WHERE:
108 North Road, Acton, ACT

I Think Therefore I Am; I Am, Therefore The World Is About To Be Destroyed!

Nick will be talking about anthropic reasoning, a collection of theories about how to handle observation selection biases, or in other words, how to reason about a problem when the fact that you exist gives you relevant information about that problem.

He will introduce and discuss anthropic theories such as the Self-Sampling Assumption, philosophical problems such as The Sleeping Beauty Problem and the Doomsday Argument, and a decision theory specifically designed to get around problems that involve anthropic bias. This will be followed by a group discussion and a game involving anthropic reasoning. As always, vegan snacks will be provided.

General meetup info:

If you use Facebook, please join our group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/lwcanberra/

Structured meetups are held on the second Saturday and fourth Friday of each month from 6 pm until late in the CSIT building, room N101.

There will be LWers at the Computer Science Students Association's weekly board games night, held on Wednesdays from 7 pm in the same location.

Discussion article for the meetup : Canberra: Intro to Anthropic Reasoning
Meetup : Melbourne Social Meetup
by Maelin — 2014-07-16T13:09:11.666Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Melbourne Social Meetup

WHEN:
18 July 2014 06:30:00PM (+1000)

WHERE:
9/239 Canterbury Rd, Blackburn

The social meetup is on again for July! This time we will be meeting in Blackburn. Come along for a chat and a game or two.

We'll be starting at 6:30pm, but we'll probably go pretty late. Drop by whenever is convenient.

Snack foods will be provided and we'll probably get some pizza or something for dinner.

If you'd like to join in carpooling, please discuss in the Facebook event (see the 'Less Wrong Melbourne' group) and we'll arrange something. Alternatively if you are taking public transport, jump off at Blackburn station (Lilydale/Belgrave line) and call me on 0421231789.

Discussion article for the meetup : Melbourne Social Meetup
Group Rationality Diary, July 16-31
by therufs — 2014-07-16T00:34:06.880Z

This is the public group instrumental rationality diary for July 16-31.

It's a place to record and chat about it if you have done, or are actively doing, things like:

Established a useful new habit

Obtained new evidence that made you change your mind about some belief

Decided to behave in a different way in some set of situations

Optimized some part of a common routine or cached behavior

Consciously changed your emotions or affect with respect to something

Consciously pursued new valuable information about something that could make a big difference in your life

Learned something new about your beliefs, behavior, or life that surprised you

Tried doing any of the above and failed

Or anything else interesting which you want to share, so that other people can think about it, and perhaps be inspired to take action themselves. Try to include enough details so that everyone can use each other's experiences to learn about what tends to work out, and what doesn't tend to work out.

Thanks to cata for starting the Group Rationality Diary posts, and to commenters for participating.

Previous diary: July 1-15

Next diary: August 1-15

Rationality diaries archive
An Experiment In Social Status: Software Engineer vs. Data Science Manager
by JQuinton — 2014-07-15T20:24:22.563Z

Here is an interesting blog post about a guy who did a resume experiment between two positions which he argues are by experience identical, but occupy different "social status" positions in tech: A software engineer and a data manager.

Interview A: as Software Engineer

Bill faced five hour-long technical interviews. Three went well. One was so-so, because it focused on implementation details of the JVM, and Bill’s experience was almost entirely in C++, with a bit of hobbyist OCaml. The last interview sounds pretty hellish. It was with the VP of Data Science, Bill’s prospective boss, who showed up 20 minutes late and presented him with one of those interview questions where there’s “one right answer” that took months, if not years, of in-house trial and error to discover. It was one of those “I’m going to prove that I’m smarter than you” interviews...

Let’s recap this. Bill passed three of his five interviews with flying colors. One of the interviewers, a few months later, tried to recruit Bill to his own startup. The fourth interview was so-so, because he wasn’t a Java expert, but came out neutral. The fifth, he failed because he didn’t know the in-house Golden Algorithm that took years of work to discover. When I asked that VP/Data Science directly why he didn’t hire Bill (and he did not know that I knew Bill, nor about this experiment) the response I got was “We need people who can hit the ground running.” Apparently, there’s only a “talent shortage” when startup people are trying to scam the government into changing immigration policy. The undertone of this is that “we don’t invest in people”.

Or, for a point that I’ll come back to, software engineers lack the social status necessary to make others invest in them.

Interview B: as Data Science manager.

A couple weeks later, Bill interviewed at a roughly equivalent company for the VP-level position, reporting directly to the CTO.

Worth noting is that we did nothing to make Bill more technically impressive than for Company A. If anything, we made his technical story more honest, by modestly inflating his social status while telling a “straight shooter” story for his technical experience. We didn’t have to cover up periods of low technical activity; that he was a man

...
Why would info worsen altruistic options?
by KatjaGrace — 2014-07-15T08:56:28.000Z

One might expect that a simple estimation would be equally likely to overestimate or underestimate the true value of interest. For instance, a back of the envelope calculation of the number of pet shops in New York City seems as likely to be too high as too low.

Apparently this doesn’t work for do-gooding. The more you look into an intervention, the worse it gets. At least generally. At least in GiveWell’s experience, and my imagination. I did think it fit my real (brief) experience in evaluating charities, but after listing considerations I considered in my more detailed calculation of Cool Earth’s cost-effectiveness, more are positive than negative (see list at the end). The net effect of these complications was still negative for Cool Earth, and I still feel like the other charities also suffered many negative complications. However I don’t trust my intuition that this is obviously strongly true. More information welcome.

In this post I’ll assume charitable interventions do consistently look worse as you evaluate them more thoroughly, and concern myself with the question of why. Below are a number of attempted explanations for this phenomenon that I and various friends can think of.

Regression to the altruistic intervention mean

Since we are looking for the very best charities, we start with ones that look best. And like anything that looks best, these charities will tend to be less good than they look. This is an explanation Jonah mentions.

In this regression to the mean story, which mean is being regressed to? If it is the mean for charities, then ineffective charities should look better on closer inspection. I find this hard to believe. I suspect that even if a casual analysis suggests $1500 will give someone a one week introduction to food gardening, which they hope will reduce their carbon footprint by 0.1 tonnes per year, the real result of such spending will be much less than the tonne per $1000 implied by a simple calculation. The participant’s time will be lost in attending and gardening, the participants probably won’t follow up by making a garden, they probably won’t keep it up for long, or produce much food from it, and so on. There will also be some friendships formed, some leisure and mental health from any gardening that ultimately happens, some averted trips to the grocery store. My guess is that ...
Wealth from Self-Replicating Robots
by Algernoq — 2014-07-15T04:42:18.727Z

I have high confidence that economically-valuable self-replicating robots are possible with existing technology: initially, something similar in size and complexity to a RepRap, but able to assemble a copy of itself from parts ordered online with zero human interaction. This is important because more robots could provide the economic growth needed to solve many urgent problems. I've held this idea for long enough that I'm worried about being a crank, so any feedback is appreciated.

I care because to fulfill my naive and unrealistic dreams (not dying, owning a spaceship) I need the world to be a LOT richer. Specifically, naively assuming linear returns to medical research funding, a funding increase of ~10x (to ~$5 trillion/year, or ~30% of current USA GDP) is needed to achieve actuarial escape velocity (average lifespans currently increase by about 1 year each decade, so a 10x increase is needed for science to keep up with aging). The simplest way to get there is to have 10x as many machines per person.

My vision is that someone does for hardware what open-source has done for software: make useful tools free. A key advantage of software is that making a build or copying a program takes only one step. In software, you click "compile" and (hopefully) it's done and ready to test in seconds. In hardware, it takes a bunch of steps to build a prototype (order parts, screw fiddly bits together, solder, etc.). A week is an insanely short lead time for building a new prototype of something mechanical. 1-2 months is typical in many industries. This means that mechanical things have high marginal cost, because people have to build and debug them, and typically transport them for thousands of miles from factory to consumer.

Relevant previous research projects include trivial self-replication from pre-fabricated components and an overly-ambitious NASA-funded plan from the 1980s to develop the Moon using self-replicating robots. Current research funding tends to go toward bio-inspired systems, re-configurable systems using prefabricated cubes (conventionally-manufactured), or chemistry deceptively called "nanotech", all of which seem to miss the opportunity to use existing autonomous assembly technology with online ordering of parts to make things cheaper by getting rid of setup cost and building cost.

I envision a library/repository of useful robots for specific tasks (...