trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Why CFAR's Mission?
by AnnaSalamon — 2016-01-02T23:23:30.935Z

Related to:

Our 2015 Fundraiser; Why CFAR? The view from 2015; Critch's "The 2015 x-risk ecosystem".

Briefly put, CFAR's mission is to improve the sanity/thinking skill of those who are most likely to actually usefully impact the world.

I'd like to explain what this mission means to me, and why I think a high-quality effort of this sort is essential, possible, and urgent.

I used a Q&A format (with imaginary Q's) to keep things readable; I would also be very glad to Skype 1-on-1 if you'd like something about CFAR to make sense, as would Pete Michaud. You can schedule a conversation automatically with me or Pete.

---

Q: Why not focus exclusively on spreading altruism? Or else on "raising awareness" for some particular known cause?

Briefly put: because historical roads to hell have been powered in part by good intentions; because the contemporary world seems bottlenecked by its ability to figure out what to do and how to do it (i.e. by ideas/creativity/capacity) more than by folks' willingness to sacrifice; and because rationality skill and epistemic hygiene seem like skills that may distinguish actually useful ideas from ineffective or harmful ones in a way that "good intentions" cannot.

Q: Even given the above -- why focus extra on sanity, or true beliefs? Why not focus instead on, say, competence/usefulness as the key determinant of how much do-gooding impact a motivated person can have? (Also, have you ever met a Less Wronger? I hear they are annoying and have lots of problems with “akrasia”, even while priding themselves on their high “epistemic” skills; and I know lots of people who seem “less rational” than Less Wrongers on some axes who would nevertheless be more useful in many jobs; is this “epistemic rationality” thingy actually the thing we need for this world-impact thingy?...)

This is an interesting one, IMO.

Basically, it seems to me that epistemic rationality, and skills for forming accurate explicit world-models, become more useful the more ambitious and confusing a problem one is tackling.

For example:

If I have one floor to sweep, it would be best to hire a person who has pre-existing skill at sweeping floors.

If I have 250 floors to sweep, it would be best to have someone energetic and perceptive, who will stick to the task, notice...
Meetup : London diaspora meetup, 10/01/2016
by philh — 2016-01-02T20:41:05.950Z

Discussion article for the meetup : London diaspora meetup, 10/01/2016

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

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

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.

This meetup will be social discussion in a pub, with no set topic. If there's a topic you want to talk about, feel free to bring it.

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, 10/01/2016
Intentional Insights and the Effective Altruism Movement – Q & A
by Gleb_Tsipursky — 2016-01-02T19:43:15.412Z

This post is cross-posted on the EA forum and is mainly of interest to EAs. It focuses on the engagement of Intentional Insights with the EA movement, and does not address the engagement of InIn with promoting rationality-informed strategies, which is a hotly-debated issue.

Introduction

I wanted to share InIn’s background and goals and where we see ourselves as fitting within the EA movement. I also wanted to allow all of you a chance to share your opinions about the benefits and drawbacks of what InIn is doing, put forth any reservations, concerns, and risks, and provide suggestions for optimization.

Background

InIn began in January 2014, when my wife and I decided to create an organization dedicated to marketing rational, evidence-based thinking in all areas of our lives, especially charitable giving, to a broad audience. We decided to do so because we looked around for organizations that would provide marketing resources for our own local activism in Columbus, OH, trying to convey these ideas to a broad public and found no such organizations. So we decided – if not us, then who? If not now, then when? My wife would use her experience in nonprofits to run the organisation, while I would use my experience as a professor to work on content and research.

We gathered together a group of local aspiring rationalists and Effective Altruists interested in the project, and launched the organization publicly in 9/2014. We got our 501(c)(3) nonprofit status, began running various content marketing experiments, and established the internal infrastructure. We also built up a solid audience in the secular and skeptical market, who we saw as the easiest-to-reach audience with promoting effective giving and rational thinking. By the early fall of 2015, we had established some connections and reputation, a solid social media following, and our articles began to be accepted in prominent venues that reach a broad audience, such as The Huffington Post and Lifehack. At that point, we felt comfortable enough to begin our active engagement with the EA movement, as we felt we could provide added value.

Fit in EA

...
Monthly Bragging Thread January 2016
by elharo — 2016-01-01T16:14:15.640Z

Your job, should you choose to accept it, is to comment on this thread explaining the most awesome thing you've done this month. You may be as blatantly proud of yourself as you feel. You may unabashedly consider yourself the coolest freaking person ever because of that awesome thing you're dying to tell everyone about. This is the place to do just that.

Remember, however, that this isn't any kind of progress thread. Nor is it any kind of proposal thread. This thread is solely for people to talk about the awesome things they have done. Not "will do." Not "are working on." Have already done. This is to cultivate an environment of object level productivity rather than meta-productivity methods. For example:

Published a new novel: Yes, brag heartily.

Wrote an outline for a new novel: No, please wait until the novel is finished.

So, what's the coolest thing you've done this month?

(Previous bragging thread)
Rationality Quotes Thread January 2016
by elharo — 2016-01-01T16:00:57.019Z

Another month, another rationality quotes thread. The rules are:

Provide sufficient information (URL, title, date, page number, etc.) to enable a reader to find the place where you read the quote, or its original source if available. Do not quote with only a name.

Post all quotes separately, so that they can be upvoted or downvoted separately. (If they are strongly related, reply to your own comments. If strongly ordered, then go ahead and post them together.)

Do not quote yourself.

Do not quote from Less Wrong itself, HPMoR, Eliezer Yudkowsky, or Robin Hanson. If you'd like to revive an old quote from one of those sources, please do so here.

No more than 5 quotes per person per monthly thread, please.
January 2016 Media Thread
by ArisKatsaris — 2016-01-01T15:16:35.515Z

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.
Meetup : San Francisco Meetup: Revealed New Years Resolutions
by rocurley — 2016-01-01T02:26:22.352Z

Discussion article for the meetup : San Francisco Meetup: Revealed New Years Resolutions

WHEN:
04 January 2016 06:15:00PM (-0800)

WHERE:
1597 Howard St. San Francisco, CA

We'll be meeting to derive our revealed new years resolutions from last year, based on what we did that year!

Discussion article for the meetup : San Francisco Meetup: Revealed New Years Resolutions
Meetup : Washington D.C.: Meta Meetup
by RobinZ — 2016-01-01T02:06:07.179Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Washington D.C.: Meta Meetup

WHEN:
03 January 2016 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 talk about the Less Wrong DC group - what people like and what people would like to change. Feel free to suggest new meetup topics!

As always, side conversations are allowed and encouraged.

(Happy New Year!)

Upcoming meetups:

Jan. 10: Fun & Games

Jan. 17: Economics Discussion

Discussion article for the meetup : Washington D.C.: Meta Meetup
Safety engineering, target selection, and alignment theory
by So8res — 2015-12-31T15:43:18.481Z

This post is the latest in a series introducing the basic ideas behind MIRI's research program. To contribute, or learn more about what we've been up to recently, see the MIRI fundraiser page. Our 2015 winter funding drive concludes tonight (31 Dec 15) at midnight.

Artificial intelligence capabilities research is aimed at making computer systems more intelligent — able to solve a wider range of problems more effectively and efficiently. We can distinguish this from research specifically aimed at making AI systems at various capability levels safer, or more "robust and beneficial." In this post, I distinguish three kinds of direct research that might be thought of as "AI safety" work: safety engineering, target selection, and alignment theory.

Imagine a world where humans somehow developed heavier-than-air flight before developing a firm understanding of calculus or celestial mechanics. In a world like that, what work would be needed in order to safely transport humans to the Moon?

In this case, we can say that the main task at hand is one of engineering a rocket and refining fuel such that the rocket, when launched, accelerates upwards and does not explode. The boundary of space can be compared to the boundary between narrowly intelligent and generally intelligent AI. Both boundaries are fuzzy, but have engineering importance: spacecraft and aircraft have different uses and face different constraints.

Paired with this task of developing rocket capabilities is a safety engineering task. Safety engineering is the art of ensuring that an engineered system provides acceptable levels of safety. When it comes to achieving a soft landing on the Moon, there are many different roles for safety engineering to play. One team of engineers might ensure that the materials used in constructing the rocket are capable of withstanding the stress of a rocket launch with significant margin for error. Another might design escape systems that ensure the humans in the rocket can survive even in the event of failure. Another might design life support systems capable of supporting the crew in dangerous environments.

A separate important task is target selection, i.e., picking where on the Moon to land. In the case of a Moon mission, targeting research might entail things like designing and constructing telescopes (if they didn't exist already) and identifying a la...
Weekly LW Meetups
by FrankAdamek — 2015-12-31T15:27:06.230Z

This summary was posted to LW Main on December 25th. The following week's summary is here.

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

Baltimore Area Meetup: 03 January 2016 02:00PM

Irregularly scheduled Less Wrong meetups are taking place in:

San Antonio Meetup: CFAR Techniques: 27 December 2015 02:00PM

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:

Moscow social meetup: Chaos is back!: 27 December 2015 02:00PM
NH Meetup: 05 January 2016 07:00PM
[Seattle] Donation Decision Day: 26 December 2015 01:00PM
[Seattle] MIRIx: Sleeping Beauty discussion : 27 December 2015 01:00PM
Vienna: 16 January 2016 03:00PM
Washington, D.C.: Holidays & Socialization: 27 December 2015 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, Cincinn...
[LINK] 52 Concepts To Add To Your Cognitive Toolkit
by iarwain1 — 2015-12-31T14:35:43.382Z

Excellent list by Brenton Mayer and Peter McIntyre: http://mcntyr.com/52-concepts-cognitive-toolkit/

I think the list can also serve as a useful index and/or introduction to a lot of LessWrong concepts.

A note of caution: I find that brief lists like this can actually be counterproductive, since they make you feel like you understand the issues when all you did was read a short definition and peg a name on the concept. I'd recommend doing the following: Look through the list carefully and slowly. If there's a concept there that you've read a lot about then you can go on to the next one, although do take a look at where the link points to in case it's to an interesting article you haven't seen before. If you haven't read a lot about the concept then ideally you should click on the link and read all about it. If you're more pressed for time, then at least take a few moments to reflect on each concept and think how it might apply to you. If you have even a slight suspicion that there might be something in the concept that wasn't completely obvious to you before, then click on the link even though you're pressed for time. If you're so time constrained that you can't even do this, then consider just bookmarking the list and getting back to it later. Personally I think it's better to read it later carefully than to read it now and think you understand it when you really don't.
MIRIx Israel, Meeting summary
by JoshuaFox — 2015-12-31T07:04:35.278Z

Aur Saraf hosted a 3-hour MIRIx meeting on December 18. Yoav Hollander, chip verification pioneer and creator of the e verification language, was there, as well as MIRI Research Associate Vadim Kosoy. Also in attendance were Benjamin Fox, Ofer Mustigman, Matan Mor, Aur Saraf, Eli Sennesh, and Joshua Fox.

Our discussion had its roots in Eliezer Yudkowsky’s 2008 article, in which he suggested that FAI researchers take an example from “computer engineers prov[ing] a chip valid”. Yet, as Yoav pointed out (in a lecture at LessWrong Tel Aviv in October 2015), there are strong limitations on formal verification at all levels, from the smallest arithmetic component on a chip up to entire systems like an airport. Even something as simple as floating-point division can barely be proven formally; as we move up to higher levels of complexity, any formal proofs always rest on very tightly constrained specifications on the input and environment. It is impossible to prove even a tiny part of the full range of relevant predicates.

Formal verification has a role, but most verification is done dynamically, for example by running a simulation against test cases. The goal of this meeting was to come up with a list of directions for applying ideas from the verification world to FAI research.

The state of FAI research

Vadim Kosoy described the state of the art in FAI research, catching us up on the last few years of MIRI’s work. FAI research can be divided into three levels: Modules, optimization under self improvement, and the selection of a human-compatible goal function.

I. Most basically, we can verify lower level modules that can make up an AGI.

II. Second -- and this is most of the research effort -- we can make sure that future AIs optimize for a given implicit human-compatible goal function, even as they grow in strength.

MIRI is focused on accomplishing this with verifiable goal preservation under self-improvement. Some other ideas include:

Agents that are deliberately kept weak.

Limited intelligence AIs evaluated on their mathematical ability, but with no knowledge of physics or our real world. (Such AIs might not be strong in induction given real-world physics, but at least this evaluation procedure might allow the relatively safe development of a certain kind of AI.)

AIs locked in cryptographic boxes. They run with

...
Rationality Reading Group: Part Q: Joy in the Merely Real
by Gram_Stone — 2015-12-30T23:16:16.344Z

This is part of a semi-monthly reading group on Eliezer Yudkowsky's ebook, Rationality: From AI to Zombies. For more information about the group, see the announcement post.

Welcome to the Rationality reading group. This fortnight we discuss Part Q: Joy in the Merely Real (pp. 939-979). This post summarizes each article of the sequence, linking to the original LessWrong post where available.

Q. Joy in the Merely Real

202. Joy in the Merely Real - If you can't take joy in things that turn out to be explicable, you're going to set yourself up for eternal disappointment. Don't worry if quantum physics turns out to be normal.

203. Joy in Discovery - It feels incredibly good to discover the answer to a problem that nobody else has answered. And we should enjoy finding answers. But we really shouldn't base our joy on the fact that nobody else has done it before. Even if someone else knows the answer to a puzzle, if you don't know it, it's still a mystery to you. And you should still feel joy when you discover the answer.

204. Bind Yourself to Reality - There are several reasons why it's worth talking about joy in the merely real in a discussion on reductionism. One is to leave a line of retreat. Another is to improve your own abilities as a rationalist by learning to invest your energy in the real world, and in accomplishing things here, rather than in a fantasy.

205. If You Demand Magic, Magic Won't Help - Magic (and dragons, and UFOs, and ...) get much of their charm from the fact that they don't actually exist. If dragons did exist, people would treat them like zebras; most people wouldn't bother to pay attention, but some scientists would get oddly excited about them. If we ever create dragons, or find aliens, we will have to learn to enjoy them, even though they happen to exist.

206. Mundane Magic - A list of abilities that would be amazing if they were magic, or if only a few people had them.

207. The Beauty of Settled Science - Most of the stuff reported in Science News is false, or at the very least, misleading. Scientific controversies are topics of such incredible difficulty that even people in the field aren't sure what's true. Read elementary textbooks. Study the settled science before you try to understand the outer fringes...
[LINK] The Top A.I. Breakthroughs of 2015
by Vika — 2015-12-30T22:04:01.202Z

A great overview article on AI breakthroughs by Richard Mallah from FLI, linking to many excellent recent papers worth reading.

Progress in artificial intelligence and machine learning has been impressive this year. Those in the field acknowledge progress is accelerating year by year, though it is still a manageable pace for us. The vast majority of work in the field these days actually builds on previous work done by other teams earlier the same year, in contrast to most other fields where references span decades.

Creating a summary of a wide range of developments in this field will almost invariably lead to descriptions that sound heavily anthropomorphic, and this summary does indeed. Such metaphors, however, are only convenient shorthands for talking about these functionalities. It's important to remember that even though many of these capabilities sound very thought-like, they're usually not very similar to how human cognition works. The systems are all of course functional and mechanistic, and, though increasingly less so, each are still quite narrow in what they do. Be warned though: in reading this article, these functionalities may seem to go from fanciful to prosaic.

The biggest developments of 2015 fall into five categories of intelligence: abstracting across environments, intuitive concept understanding, creative abstract thought, dreaming up visions, and dexterous fine motor skills. I'll highlight a small number of important threads within each that have brought the field forward this year.