trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Changing time zones
by Elo — 2016-09-02T06:31:27.936Z

Original post: http://bearlamp.com.au/changing-time-zones/

With a few of my new organisation and time management prediction algorithms I have found that I can plan down to a few minutes accurately. I noticed something today that surprised me.

I wear two watches. The history of this goes back more than 10 years, but today I wear two watches because one of them is analog and never runs out of battery and the other is digital and tracks heart rate, skin temp, perspiration and other metrics while also being a smart digital watch and telling the time, but only has a 4 day long battery life.

My digital watch updates to whatever time my phone is set to, which updates to global servers etc. so that watch is the right time. I accidentally set my analog watch fast and then noticed I would get places just on time, or quite very exactly on time instead of 5 minutes late. I really lucked out with this behaviour, because it took me a while to figure out what is happening. Or what I think is happening.

When I am running late, I check the time in a system 1 way, which means I glance at my watch and continue about my day. Then my brain takes the information granted by the visual angle of the hands and converts that into time for me to work out if I am running late or on time. By having my analog watch fast, I will take actions that involve assumptions that the time is actually faster than it is. For example, deciding to leave my house because I "should have left already", instead of spending another 5 minutes on whatever I am doing.

If I am planning tasks for the future, or doing other time-checking behaviour, I do it using system 2, I naturally check both my watches so that I get an accurate feel for the time now.

Surprise

Today I was struck by the idea I was suddenly running late. Which is not a feeling I was expecting given that I was in fact running squarely on time. Where what actually transpired was that I was looking at computer time when I decided to go in the shower, and when I got out of the shower I looked at analog time. Which put me squarely past the "running right on time" and into the "definitely running late". In other words I changed time zone on myself.

This whole post is to note that noticing when things surprise you is a...
Meetup : Baltimore Area Weekly Meetup
by iarwain1 — 2016-09-01T22:56:52.733Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Baltimore Area Weekly Meetup

WHEN:
04 September 2016 08:00:00PM (-0400)

WHERE:
1726 Reisterstown Rd, Pikesville, MD 21208, USA

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

Discussion article for the meetup : Baltimore Area Weekly Meetup
EpiPenomenon
by Jacob Falkovich — 2016-09-01T18:12:14.000Z

11/16/2016 change of mind notice

I am no longer confident that the FDA harms more lives than it saves, and thus I no longer endorse setting fire to it, pending further investigation. What changed my mind was not the commenters disparaging me as a “101 economist” in the comments. What changed my mind was my mom, a long-time professional in the pharmaceutics industry, explaining in detail the rules the FDA plays by and the exact procedures and standards they follow.

I still think that the GDA is a cool idea that should be explored, and there’s a good chance that it will do better than the FDA (measured by number of lives saved) when properly set up.

0 – Escaping the mind kill

My political-economic philosophy is best described as Bowmanite-Neoliberalism, but the word “neoliberal” is too loaded. Most people will call me a consequentialist-libertarian instead. Also, it’s no secret that Slate Star Codex is my favorite blog. So of course, when SSC published a sharp consequentialist-libertarian rant about the EpiPen price controversy, I had a lot of fun reading it.

Too much fun, in fact. The kind of fun you have when you’re landing a cracking punch on the enemy, not when you’re mindfully thinking about complex policy.

So much fun that I neglected to actually read the original Vox piece that Scott railed against. It turns out that the original piece (and the follow-up) was penned by Sarah Kliff. She’s no idiot and no socialist, a couple weeks ago I gave high praise to her article on the gender wage gap. So what’s going on?

In particular:

Who’s right, Scott or Sarah?

What’s wrong with the FDA?

1 – Buyer, seller or regulator?

Scott is talking about the US Government making EpiPens expensive by blocking the entry of competitors, thus ensuring that “the pharmaceutical industry is part of a highly-regulated cronyist system that works completely differently from chairs and mugs”. Sarah blames the US Government for not making Mylan charge a lower price for EpiPens. But “the US Government” isn’t really a single actor in this case. It’s a terrifying hydra with many heads, and each head has its own deal with EpiPens.

In a normal world, there are two types of actors in each market. There are sellers, who set the prices. There are buyers, who decide whether to ta...
A model of arguments
by Elo — 2016-09-01T12:41:26.147Z

Original post: http://bearlamp.com.au/a-model-of-arguments/

Why do we argue, when we could be discussing things in a productive manner? Arguments often occur because the parties involved simply don't have the tools to transmit their ideas clearly. In this kind of situation, the whole conversation can completely break down. It’s easy to spend a lot of time saying "You're wrong", without accomplishing anything.

Let's imagine two people having an argument, represented by a Venn diagram. A in the black, and B in the blue. They each see the issue slightly differently. The blue circle to represent B’s opinion and a black circle to represent A’s opinion. The concept of “You’re wrong” falls into the area of describing the other person’s ideas.

Person A says, "You're wrong" to Person B. A description of the state of affairs of B’s ideas. Not one that really represents A’s own ideas. Naturally, Person B says, “No you’re wrong” back, equally making the unfounded claim on A’s conceptual real-estate. The thing that is hard to demonstrate is the conflict that is accidentally generated by crossing into each other’s territory to declare things.

To do this creates a crossing-over of ideas.

We don’t even need to know what the argument is about, but we can expect something like this to happen:

Now suppose instead of Person A saying, "You're wrong", where they place the burden of argument (and proof) on the opposition, they now say, "We disagree".

Person B can now continue to make the same argument of "You're wrong". But so long as Person A shrugs and replies "We disagree", there is no conflict in the argument.

For some Person Bs, Person A might get lucky, and the two could end up with a happy middle ground of "Yes, we disagree". This is already a step in the right direction, and will let the pair continue to sort out precisely where and how they disagree On the other hand, a stubborn Person B will still present a problem.

Hey, that's the internet for you! You win some, you lose some.

Nonetheless, the shared ground offered by "We disagree" will often spur constructive discussion.

As it turns out, there is another way. When you go to understand someone...
Meetup : Less Wrong Melb: Social dinner 
by Chriswaterguy — 2016-09-01T11:24:48.331Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Less Wrong Melb: Social dinner

WHEN:
03 September 2016 06:00:00PM (+1000)

WHERE:
Naked for Satan, 285 Brunswick Street, Fitzroy, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Less Wrong Melb: Social dinner

Catch up and have stimulating conversation over dinner. Also, Tim Josling from Less Wrong Sydney is in Melbourne.

WHEN: Saturday 3rd Sept, Turn up for 6, aiming for 6:30 pm. Or whenever you get there.

Until the stars fade and we watch the sun come up. Or maybe until dessert. Depends on available energy.

WHERE: Naked for Satan (but wear clothes)
285 Brunswick Street, Fitzroy, Melbourne

CONTACT: If you have trouble finding us, call or text Chris 0439 471 632. (FB messages may or may not be noticed promptly.)

Discussion article for the meetup : Less Wrong Melb: Social dinner
No negative press agreement
by Elo — 2016-09-01T11:10:22.309Z

Original post: http://bearlamp.com.au/no-negative-press-agreement/

What is a no negative press agreement?

A no negative press agreement binds a media outlet's consent to publish information provided by a person with the condition that they be not portrayed negatively by the press.

Why would a person want that?

In recognising that the press has powers above and beyond every-day people to publish information and spread knowledge and perspective about an issue that can be damaging to an individual. An individual while motivated by the appeal of publicity, is also concerned about the potential damage caused by negative press.

Every person is the hero of their own story, from one's own perspective they performed actions that were justified and motivated by their own intention and worldview, no reasonable person would be able to tell their story (other than purposefully) in which they are spun as the negative conspirator of a plot, actively causing negative events on the world for no reason.

Historically, humans have been motivated to care more about bad news than good news, for reasons that expand on the idea that bad news might ring your death (and be a cause of natural selection) and good news would be irrelevant for survival purposes. Today we are no longer in that historic period, yet we still pay strong attention to bad news. It's clear that bad news can personally effect individuals - not only those in the stories, but others experiencing the bad news can be left with a negative worldview or motivated to be upset or distraught. In light of the fact that bad news is known to spread more than good news, and also risks negatively affecting us mentally, we are motivated to choose to avoid bad news, both in not creating it, not endorsing it and not aiding in it's creation.

The binding agreement is designed to do several things:

protect the individual from harm

reduce the total volume of negative press in the world

decrease the damage caused by negative press in the world

bring about the future we would rather live in

protect the media outlet from harming individuals

Does this limit news-maker's freedom to publish?

That is not the intent. On the outset, it's easy to think that it could have that effect, and perhaps in a very shortsighted way it might have that effect...
September 2016 Media Thread
by ArisKatsaris — 2016-09-01T09:57:03.201Z

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 : Washington, D.C.: Fun & Games
by RobinZ — 2016-08-31T03:03:25.774Z

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

WHEN:
04 September 2016 03:30:00PM (-0400)

WHERE:
Donald W. Reynolds Center for American Art and Portraiture

This week, we will be meeting in the courtyard to hang out, play games, and engage in fun conversation.

Upcoming meetups:

Sep. 11: Singing

Sep. 18: Steelmanning

Sep. 25: Outdoor Fun & Games

Discussion article for the meetup : Washington, D.C.: Fun & Games
Causal graphs and counterfactuals
by Stuart_Armstrong — 2016-08-30T16:12:12.295Z

Problem solved: Found what I was looking for in: An Axiomatic Characterization Causal Counterfactuals, thanks to Evan Lloyd.

Basically, making every endogenous variable a deterministic function of the exogenous variables and of the other endogenous variables, and pushing all the stochasticity into the exogenous variables.

Old post:

A problem that's come up with my definitions of stratification.

Consider a very simple causal graph:

In this setting, A and B are both booleans, and A=B with 75% probability (independently about whether A=0 or A=1).

I now want to compute the counterfactual: suppose I assume that B=0 when A=0. What would happen if A=1 instead?

The problem is that P(B|A) seems insufficient to solve this. Let's imagine the process that outputs B as a probabilistic mix of functions, that takes the value of A and outputs that of B. There are four natural functions here:

f0(x) = 0

f1(x) = 1

f2(x) = x

f3(x) = 1-x

Then one way of modelling the causal graph is as a mix 0.75f2 + 0.25f3. In that case, knowing that B=0 when A=0 implies that P(f2)=1, so if A=1, we know that B=1.

But we could instead model the causal graph as 0.5f2+0.25f1+0.25f0. In that case, knowing that B=0 when A=0 implies that P(f2)=2/3 and P(f0)=1/3. So if A=1, B=1 with probability 2/3 and B=1 with probability 1/3.

And we can design the node B, physically, to be one or another of the two distributions over functions or anything in between (the general formula is (0.5+x)f2 + x(f3)+(0.25-x)f1+(0.25-x)f0 for 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.25). But it seems that the causal graph does not capture that.

Owain Evans has said that Pearl has papers covering these kinds of situations, but I haven't been able to find them. Does anyone know any publications on the subject?
Causal graphs and counterfactuals
by Stuart_Armstrong — 2016-08-30T16:06:13.000Z

A problem that's come up with my definitions of stratification.

Consider a very simple causal graph:

.

In this setting, A and B are both booleans, and A=B with 75% probability (independently about whether A=0 or A=1).

Suppose I now want to compute the counterfactual: suppose I assume that B=0 when A=0. What would happen if A=1 instead?

The problem is that P(B|A) seems insufficient to solve this. Let's imagine the process that outputs B as a probabilistic mix of functions, that takes the value of A and outputs that of B. There are four natural functions here:

f0(x)=0

f1(x)=1

f2(x)=x

f3(x)=1−x

Then one way of modelling the causal graph is as a mix 0.75f2+0.25f3. In that case, knowing that B=0 when A=0 implies that P(f2)=1, so if A=1, we know that B=1.

But we could instead model the causal graph as 0.5f2+0.25f1+0.25f1. In that case, knowing that B=0 when A=0 implies that P(f2)=2/3 and P(f0)=1/3. So if A=1, B=1 with probability 2/3 and B=1 with probability 1/3.

And we can design the node B, physically, to be one or another of the two distributions over functions or anything in between (the general formula is (0.5+x)f2+x(f3)+(0.25−x)f1+(0.25−x)f0 for 0≤x≤0.25). But it seems that the causal graph does not capture that.

Owain Evans has said that Pearl has papers covering these kinds of situations, but I haven't been able to find them. Does anyone know any publications on the subject?
UC Berkeley launches Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence
by ignoranceprior — 2016-08-29T22:43:19.018Z

Source article: http://news.berkeley.edu/2016/08/29/center-for-human-compatible-artificial-intelligence/

UC Berkeley artificial intelligence (AI) expert Stuart Russell will lead a new Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence, launched this week.

Russell, a UC Berkeley professor of electrical engineering and computer sciences and the Smith-Zadeh Professor in Engineering, is co-author of Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, which is considered the standard text in the field of artificial intelligence, and has been an advocate for incorporating human values into the design of AI.

The primary focus of the new center is to ensure that AI systems are beneficial to humans, he said.

The co-principal investigators for the new center include computer scientists Pieter Abbeel and Anca Dragan and cognitive scientist Tom Griffiths, all from UC Berkeley; computer scientists Bart Selman and Joseph Halpern, from Cornell University; and AI experts Michael Wellman and Satinder Singh Baveja, from the University of Michigan. Russell said the center expects to add collaborators with related expertise in economics, philosophy and other social sciences.

The center is being launched with a grant of $5.5 million from the Open Philanthropy Project, with additional grants for the center’s research from the Leverhulme Trust and the Future of Life Institute.

Russell is quick to dismiss the imaginary threat from the sentient, evil robots of science fiction. The issue, he said, is that machines as we currently design them in fields like AI, robotics, control theory and operations research take the objectives that we humans give them very literally. Told to clean the bath, a domestic robot might, like the Cat in the Hat, use mother’s white dress, not understanding that the value of a clean dress is greater than the value of a clean bath.

The center will work on ways to guarantee that the most sophisticated AI systems of the future, which may be entrusted with control of critical infrastructure and may provide essential services to billions of people, will act in a manner that is aligned with human values.

“AI systems must remain under human control, with suitable constraints on behavior, despite capabilities that may eventually exceed our own,” Russell said. “This means we need cast-iron formal proofs, not just good intentions.”

One approach R

...
Opportunities and Obstacles for Life on Proxima b
by morganism — 2016-08-29T22:04:09.101Z

This is from the foundation that put out the announcement, Pale Red Dot.

A lot of difficulties, but the best thing put forward, is that if an earthlike planet is circling the closest star, that they should be relatively common.

https://palereddot.org/opportunities-and-obstacles-for-life-on-proxima-b/

And the Breakthru Starshot meeting just over, and this system is still a good target, but not the only one.

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=36265

and they did some modeling of the dust abrasion on the wafer probes, most won't make it.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2102267-interstellar-probes-will-be-eroded-on-the-way-to-alpha-centauri/
Open Thread, Aug 29. - Sept 5. 2016
by Elo — 2016-08-29T02:28:13.702Z

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, 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 start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

4. Unflag the two options "Notify me of new top level comments on this article" and "Make this post available under..." before submitting.
The call of the void
by Elo — 2016-08-28T13:17:49.142Z

Original post: http://bearlamp.com.au/the-call-of-the-void

L'appel du vide - The call of the void.

When you are standing on the balcony of a tall building, looking down at the ground and on some track your brain says "what would it feel like to jump". When you are holding a kitchen knife thinking, "I wonder if this is sharp enough to cut myself with". When you are waiting for a train and your brain asks, "what would it be like to step in front of that train?". Maybe it's happened with rope around your neck, or power tools, or what if I take all the pills in the bottle. Or touch these wires together, or crash the plane, crash the car, just veer off. Lean over the cliff... Try to anger the snake, stick my fingers in the moving fan... Or the acid. Or the fire.

There's a strange phenomenon where our brains seem to do this, "I wonder what the consequences of this dangerous thing are". And we don't know why it happens. There has only been one paper (sorry it's behind a paywall) on the concept. Where all they really did is identify it. I quite like the paper for quoting both (“You know that feeling you get when you're standing in a high place… sudden urge to jump?… I don't have it” (Captain Jack Sparrow, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, 2011). And (a drive to return to an inanimate state of existence; Freud, 1922).

Taking a look at their method; they surveyed 431 undergraduates for their experiences of what they coined HPP (High Place Phenomenon). They found that 30% of their constituents have experienced HPP, and tried to measure if it was related to anxiety or suicide. They also proposed a theory.

...we propose that at its core, the experience of the high place phenomenon stems from the misinterpretation of a safety or survival signal. (e.g., “back up, you might fall”)

I want to believe it, but today there are Literally no other papers on the topic. And no evidence either way. So all I can say is - We don't really know. s'weird. Dunno.

This week I met someone who uncomfortably described their experience of toying with L'appel du vide. I explained to them how this is a common and confusing phenomenon, and to their relief said, "it's not like I want ...
Risks from Approximate Value Learning
by David Scott Krueger (formerly: capybaralet) — 2016-08-27T19:34:06.178Z

Solving the value learning problem is (IMO) the key technical challenge for AI safety.
How good or bad is an approximate solution?
EDIT for clarity:
By "approximate value learning" I mean something which does a good (but suboptimal from the perspective of safety) job of learning values. So it may do a good enough job of learning values to behave well most of the time, and be useful for solving tasks, but it still has a non-trivial chance of developing dangerous instrumental goals, and is hence an Xrisk.
Considerations:
1. How would developing good approximate value learning algorithms effect AI research/deployment?
It would enable more AI applications. For instance, many many robotics tasks such as "smooth grasping motion" are difficult to manually specify a utility function for. This could have positive or negative effects:
Positive:
* It could encourage more mainstream AI researchers to work on value-learning.
Negative:
* It could encourage more mainstream AI developers to use reinforcement learning to solve tasks for which "good-enough" utility functions can be learned.
Consider a value-learning algorithm which is "good-enough" to learn how to perform complicated, ill-specified tasks (e.g. folding a towel). But it's still not quite perfect, and so every second, there is a 1/100,000,000 chance that it decides to take over the world. A robot using this algorithm would likely pass a year-long series of safety tests and seem like a viable product, but would be expected to decide to take over the world in ~3 years.
Without good-enough value learning, these tasks might just not be solved, or might be solved with safer approaches involving more engineering and less performance, e.g. using a collection of supervised learning modules and hand-crafted interfaces/heuristics.

2. What would a partially aligned AI do?
An AI programmed with an approximately correct value function might fail
* dramatically (see, e.g. Eliezer, on AIs "tiling the solar system with tiny smiley faces.")
or
* relatively benignly (see, e.g. my example of an AI that doesn't understand gustatory pleasure)
Perhaps a more significant example of benign partial-alignment would be an AI that has not learned all human values, but is corrigible and handles its uncertainty about its utility in a desirable way.