trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
What are the best arguments and/or plans for doing work in "AI policy"?
by Eli Tyre — 2019-12-09T07:04:57.398Z

I'm looking to get oriented in the space of "AI policy": interventions that involve world governments (particularly the US government) and existential risk from strong AI.

When I hear people talk about "AI policy", my initial reaction is skepticism, because (so far) I can think of very few actions that governments could take that seem to help with the core problems of AI ex-risk. However, I haven't read much about this area, and I don't know what actual policy recommendations people have in mind.

So what should I read to start? Can people link to plans and proposals in AI policy space?

Research papers, general interest web pages, and one's own models, are all admissible.

Thanks.
The Review Phase
by Ben Pace — 2019-12-09T00:54:28.514Z

LessWrong is currently doing a major review of 2018 — looking back at old posts and considering which of them have stood the test of time. Info about what features we added to the site for writing reviews is in December's monthly updates post.

There are three phases:

Nomination (completed)
Review (ends Dec 31st [EDIT: Jan 13th])
Voting on the best posts (ends January 7th [EDIT: Jan 13th])

We’re now in the Review Phase, and there are 75 posts that got two or more nominations. The full list is here. Now is the time to dig into those posts, and for each one ask questions like “What did it add to the conversation?”, “Was it epistemically sound?” and “How do I know these things?”.

The LessWrong team will award $2000 in prizes to the reviews that are most helpful to them for deciding what goes into the Best of 2018 book.

If you’re a nominated author and for whatever reason don’t want one or more of your posts to be considered for the Best of 2018 book, contact any member of the team - e.g. drop me an email at benitopace@gmail.com.

Creating Inputs For LW Users' Thinking

The goal for the next month is for us to try to figure out which posts we think were the best in 2018.

Not which posts were talked about a lot when they were published, or which posts were highly upvoted at the time, but which posts, with the benefit of hindsight, you're most grateful for being published, and are well suited to be part of the foundation of future conversations.

This is in part an effort to reward the best writing, and in part an effort to solve the bandwidth problem (there were more than 2000 posts written in 2018) so that we can build common knowledge of the best ideas that came out of 2018.

With that aim, when I'm reviewing a post, the main question I'm asking myself is

What information can I give to other users to help them think clearly and accurately about whether a given post should be added to our annual journal?

A large part of the review phase is about producing inputs for our collective thinking. With that in mind, I’ve gathered some examples of things you can write that are help others understand posts and their impacts.

1) Personal Experience Reports

There were a lot of examples of this in the nomination phase, which I found really useful, and would find useful to read...
Books on the zeitgeist of science during Lord Kelvin's time.
by Hazard — 2019-12-09T00:17:30.207Z

There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.

(edit: looks like this question was based on a false impression of history, so nvm)

That Lord Kelvin apocryphal quote has always stuck out to me. I remember hearing from some other source that this was a general attitude at the time.

Does anyone have good book recommendations to get a feel for what the intellectual / scientific zeitgeist of this moment in history in Europe was like?
What determines the balance between intelligence signaling and virtue signaling?
by Wei Dai — 2019-12-09T00:11:37.662Z

Lately I've come to think of human civilization as largely built on the backs of intelligence and virtue signaling. In other words, civilization depends very much on the positive side effects of (not necessarily conscious) intelligence and virtue signaling, as channeled by various institutions. As evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller says, "it’s all signaling all the way down."

A question I'm trying to figure out now is, what determines the relative proportions of intelligence vs virtue signaling? (Miller argued that intelligence signaling can be considered a kind of virtue signaling, but that seems debatable to me, and in any case, for ease of discussion I'll use "virtue signaling" to mean "other kinds of virtue signaling besides intelligence signaling".) It seems that if you get too much of one type of signaling versus the other, things can go horribly wrong (the link is to Gwern's awesome review/summary of a book about the Cultural Revolution). We're seeing this more and more in Western societies, in places like journalism, academia, government, education, and even business. But what's causing this?

One theory is that Twitter with its character limit, and social media and shorter attention spans in general, have made it much easier to do virtue signaling relative to intelligence signaling. But this seems too simplistic and there has to be more to it, even if it is part of the explanation.

Another idea is that intelligence is valued more when a society feels threatened by an outside force, for which they need competent people to protect themselves from. US policy changes after Sputnik is a good example of this. This may also explain why intelligence signaling continues to dominate or at least is not dominated by virtue signaling in the rationalist and EA communities (i.e., we're really worried about the threat from Unfriendly AI).

Does anyone have other ideas, or have seen more systematic research into this question?

Once we understand the above, here are some followup questions: Is the trend towards more virtue signaling at the expense of intelligence signaling likely to reverse itself? How bad can things get, realistically, if it doesn't? Is there anything we can or should do about the problem? How can we at least protect our own communities from runaway virtue signaling? (The recent calls against appeals to consequences make more sense to me now, given

...
Counterfactuals: Smoking Lesion vs. Newcomb's
by Chris_Leong — 2019-12-08T21:02:05.972Z

We will consider a special version of the Smoking Lesion where there is 100% correlation between smoking and cancer - ie. if you have the lesion, then you smoke and have cancer, if you don't have the lesion, then you don't smoke and don't have cancer. We'll also assume the predictor is perfect in the version of Newcomb's we are considering. Further, we'll assume that the Lesion is outside of the "core" part of your brain, which we'll just refer to as the brain and assume that it affects this by sending hormones to it.

Causality

Notice how similar the problems are. Getting the $1000 or to smoke a cigarette is a Small Gain. Getting cancer or missing out on the $1 million is a Big Loss. Anyone who Smokes or Two-Boxes gets a Small Gain and a Big Loss. Anyone who Doesn't Smoke or One-boxes gets neither.

So while from one perspective these problems might seem the same, they seem different when we try to think about it casually.

For Newcomb's:

Imagine a One-Boxer counterfactually Two-Boxers
Then their brain my be that of a Two-Boxer, so they are predicted to Two-Box, so they miss out on the million

For Smoking Lesion:

Imagine that a Non-Smoker counterfactually Smokes
Then we don't imagine this giving them the Lesion, so they still don't get cancer

Or at least these are the standard interpretations of these problems. The key question two ask here is why does it seem reasonable to imagine the predictor changing its prediction if you counterfactually Two-Box, but the lesion remaining the same if you counterfactually smoke?

Linkages

The mystery deepens when we realise that in Smoking Lesion, the Lesion is taken to cause both Smoking and Cancer, while in Newcomb's, your Brain causes both your Decision and the Prediction. For some reason, we seem more inclined to cut the link between Smoking and the Lesion than between your Decision and your Brain.

How do we explain this? One possibility is that for there Lesion there is simply more indirection - the link is Lesion -> Brain -> Decision - and that this pushes us to see it as easier to cut. However, I think it's worthwhile paying attention to the specific links. The link between your Brain and your Decision is a very tightly coupled link. It's hard to imagine a mismatch here without the situation becoming inconsistent. We could imagine a situation where the output of your brain goes to a chip which makes the final decision, but t...
Progress and preservation in IDA
by cole_haus — 2019-12-08T19:39:44.012Z
Link: https://www.col-ex.org/posts/progress-preservation-ida/

Overview

This post arose out of my attempts to understand IDA and ways it could fail. It might help you do the same and could provide useful vocabulary for discussing desiderata for IDA.

We want IDA to satisfy progress---decomposition should make answering questions easier---and preservation---semantics should be retained across transformations. We need progress in each decomposition and, furthermore, repeated decompositions must be able to eventually simplify each question such that it can be answered directly by a human. Also, each decomposition and aggregation of questions and answers must introduce no more than a bounded amount of semantic drift and, furthermore, repeated decompositions and aggregations should also introduce no more than a bounded amount of semantic drift.

IDA

Iterated distillation and amplification (henceforth IDA) is a proposal for improving the capability of human-machine systems to suprahuman levels in complex domains where even evaluation of system outputs may be beyond unaugmented human capabilities. For a detailed explanation of the mechanics, I'll refer you to the original paper just linked, section 0 of Machine Learning Projects for Iterated Distillation and Amplification, or one of the many other explanations floating around the Web.

We can view IDA as dynamic programming with function approximation[1] instead of a tabular cache. Just like the cache in dynamic programming, the machine learning component of IDA is a performance optimization. We can excise it and look at just the divide-and-conquer aspect of IDA in our analysis. Then this simplified IDA roughly consists of: (1) repeatedly decomposing tasks into simpler subtasks; (2) eventually completing sufficiently simple subtasks; and (3) aggregating outputs from subtasks into an output which completes the original, undecomposed task. We'll examine this simplified model[2] in the rest of the post. (If you'd like a more concrete description of the divide-and-conquer component of IDA, there's a runnable Haskell demo here.)

Safety is progress plus preservation

For type systems, the slogan is "safety is progress plus preservation". Because we're using this only as a cute analogy and organizing framework, we'll not get into the details. But for type systems:

Progress: "A well-typed term is [...] either [...] a value or it can take a step according to the evaluation rules."

Preservat

...
Confabulation
by lsusr — 2019-12-08T10:18:48.986Z

When someone asks me why I did or said something I usually lie because the truthful answer is "I don't know". I literally don't know why I make >99% of my decisions. I think through none of these decisions rationally. It's usually some mixture of gut instinct, intuition, cultural norms, common sense and my emotional state at the time.

Instead, I make up a rational-sounding answer on the spot. Even when writing a mathematical proof I'll start with an answer and then rationalize it post hoc. If I'm unusual it's because I knowingly confabulate. Most humans unknowingly confabulate. This is well-established through studies of split-brained patients, Anton's syndrome, Capgras' syndrome and choice blindness.

Confabulation is lazy evaluation. At the end of the day it's more important to be less wrong than more rational. Confabulation is cheaper and faster than reason. If you can confabulate the right behavior then you should confabulate instead of reasoning.

Confabulation becomes a problem when you misconstrue it for reason. A long time ago I wanted to understand Christianity so I asked a Christian a series of "why" questions the way I'd ask a physicist. His answers became increasingly confabulated until he eventually accused me of attacking him. I have stayed friends with another Christian from the same church who simply declares "I don't know".

Mathematics is a unique field because if you put any two mathematicians in a room with a mountain of stationary then they will eventually agree on what they can and can't prove. This is performed by confabulating smaller and smaller inductive leaps until they're all reduced to trivialities.

We perform a less rigorous form of proof writing when we rationally explain a decision. Rationality is best rationed to points of disagreement. Lazy evaluation is adequate for the vast swathes of human agreement. In this way reason and confabulation coexist mutualistically. One cannot exist without the other. Together they constitute rationality.

Which brings us to antimemes.

Antimemes are self-keeping secrets. Occasionally you'll stumble upon one by accident. When this happens you'll unconsciously shy away from it the way your eyes drift from the building next to the Leaky Cauldron to the one on the other side. Normally this is the end of things. You move on and forget about it. Your mind stitches over the antimeme the same way it stitches...
Chakras & Qi - Old Stories for the Base-Line Experience.  Improve your physical & mental health by connecting body and mind.

by leggi — 2019-12-08T04:22:11.111Z

Epistemic status: Based my experiences, a simple explanation for some very old ideas.

The connection between body and mind. Conscious proprioception, using the main muscles of movement, , seeing the sparkles, feeling the power of the human body when it is used correctly.... qi, chakras...

Chakras.

"Chakra" is probably the most well-known terminology in English for a concept that appears in many traditions. I remain vague about 'many traditions' (my knowledge is insufficient to comment) and I include no definition for "chakra" but the existence of chakras is a topic that appears to split people (who have an opinion on the topic and inhabit the online world) into two camps - those who talk of chakras as if they are real phenomenon and those that say it all sounds like nonsense. Is that a fair assessment?

My First Thoughts.

When I started working with my Base-Line - focusing on activating my pelvic floor and rectus abdominis muscles, section by section from pubic symphysis to chest - I found myself thinking 'red, orange, yellow, green ...' as I engaged these muscles and the concept of chakras came to mind.

Research.

I would classify my starting 'knowledge' as almost zero. I've seen the typical posters (go-ogle images) but I've never been to a yoga class and don't even have another example of where I might encounter chakras. (Nov. 2021 I've now been to a yoga class - no mention of chakras!)

For illustrative purposes only!

I went looking for the original source of chakras (internet trawling).

Reading the blurbs from a couple of 'classic' chakra books instinct/rational thought said to me this is not the right path/seems like a load of BS and most information that appears via go-ogle is an echo-chamber - energy centres, meditation, blockages, symbols, colours, petals ... It gets flaky fast.

I did however deem a couple of articles bookmark-worthy at the time:

hinduism/concepts/chakras. A couple of lines that stood out:

chakra or cakra has multiple meanings.

The earliest known mention of chakras is found in the later Upanishads, including specifically the Brahma Upanishads and the Yogatattva Upanishads.

I stopped reading at the "seven basic chakras". I had neither the time or need to read.

I skimmed the Wikipedia page and a couple of other sites for information on the Upanishads. I came across: Introduction to The Upanishads (I haven't read them - text ...
What do the Charter Cities Institute likely mean when they refer to long term problems with the use of eminent domain?
by mako yass — 2019-12-08T00:53:44.933Z

Without using eminent domain, a large chunk of the possible future value goes to surrounding land-owners who may have done little or nothing to create that value. It does not seem economically possible to build a city that is cheap to live in without locking the price of land down in some way, at some point. It is not obvious how to do this well, but eminent domain seems to be a necessary component of it. If even fairly rural land starts out pre-speculated, there is no hope, there is a value/livability value that cities cannot ever rise above.

Apparently, the Charter Cities Institute for all their dreams, does not dream of transcending that limit any time soon. They seem to disagree with the use of eminent domain completely

From their FAQ

How do you minimize the risk of charter city developers using eminent domain to secure land?

The Charter Cities Institute will never become involved with a project that takes land from its rightful [weasel words?] owners. Generally, charter cities are decades long projects. As such, we encourage developers to take long term perspectives. While eminent domain might save money in the short run, it delegitimizes the charter city and sets up a host of problems later on.

Does anyone know what they're talking about? A search of their site didn't turn up anything.
Ungendered Spanish
by jefftk — 2019-12-07T16:20:02.001Z

Spanish has gramatical gender in a way English doesn't:

una amiga ruidosa — a loud (female) friend

un amigo ruidoso — a loud (male) friend

unas amigas ruidosas — some loud (female) friends

unos amigos ruidosos — some loud (not-all-female) friends

I remember when I was studying Spanish, learning the rule that even if
you had a hundred girls and one boy you would use the male plural. My
class all thought this was very sexist and unfair, but our teacher
told us we were misapplying American norms and intuitions.

It's been interesting, ~twenty years later, following the development
of gender-neutral ‑e:

unes amigues ruidoses — some loud friends

(Some
Spanish
language
sources,
English language
sources.)

Spanish gender-neutral ‑e has something in common with English
singular they that makes me optimistic about it: a decent path
through which it could become a standard and unremarkable part of the
language. For they this has looked like:

Existing long-standing use in someone and everyone
constructions: someone lost their fork.

Usage expands into more generic constructions: I hear you
have a new lab partner; what are they like?

Many non-binary people adopt it as their pronoun. People get
practice referring to specific named individuals with it: Pat said
they might be early.

Usage expands into cases where the person's gender is not
relevant: The person who gave me a ride home from the dance last
night doesn't take care of their car.

[prediction] Usage expands to where people use they
unless they specifically want to emphasize gender.

Unlike the alternatives, amigos y amigas, amigxs,
amig@s, and amig*s, gender-netural ‑e fits
well with spoken Spanish. Reading articles from a while
ago it seems strange to me that this wasn't seen as more of a
priority before? Still there's now something of a path for it to
enter the language as it's generally spoken:

Existing long-standing use in words like estudiante,
though still with gendered articles and agreement (los estudiantes
ruidosos).

Usage starts as an inclusive plural: Les estudiantes
ruidoses.

Usage also starts with non-binary people: Presento a Sol, mi
espose.

Usage expands to when the individual isn't known: Necesito
une amigue...

Usage expands to when the gender isn't known: No puedo
adivinar el género de le maestre por su voz.

[prediction] Usage expands to

...
The '5 Main Muscles of Movement' Made Easy.
by leggi — 2019-12-07T09:17:50.359Z

A post to help find the 5 main muscles (from my Base-Line Theory of Health and Movement) on your own body.

Anatomy is wordy. It's easy to get lost, but knowing the details isn't important:

Study the pictures. See.
Palpate your body. Feel.

Keep thinking about these 5 (paired - left and right) 'main muscles of moment' and how you use them as you move through your daily life.

Get to know how your body feels.

Become more aware of your posture (the position of all of your body, all of the time).

Keep in mind images and diagrams aren't what the tissues of the body are really like. We are made up of a web of connective tissues, in many forms, within which the cells our organs and muscles are contained. Structures are not isolated parts, our body blends from one named structure to another.

1. Rectus femoris

rectus femoris muscles.

Below the knee, feel for the lump (tibial tuberosity) at the front of your shin bone (tibia). Run your hands up over your kneecaps and front of your thighs to just below the sticking-out bone at the front of your pelvis (hip bone). This is the full extent of the rectus femoris muscle.

Aim for the whole muscle to be active.
A strong, straight pole at the front of each thigh from hip to shin.
Think of pulling your kneecaps up to activate the muscle + a downward extension from your hip bone.

From shin - a ligament that contains the kneecap turning into a layer of connective tissue at the back of the muscle.

From hip - short ropes of tendon from the hip bones that turn into a layer of connective tissue down the front of the rectus femoris muscles.

Muscle tissue of the rectus femoris sandwiched between layers of tough connective tissue (aponeuroses) at the front and back.

The rectus femoris is part of the quadriceps muscle group but it is the only one of the 4 muscles to attach to the pelvis - the other 3 attach to the top of the femur and thus do not cross the hip joint.

The muscles of the quadriceps femoris muscle group. The rectus femoris is the only one to cross the hip and knee joints.

The rectus femoris muscles align the hip and knee joints.

The rectus femoris from hip bone to shin, strong poles that correctly position hip and knee joints.

2. Gluteus maximus.

The largest skeletal muscles of the body (covering a lot of complicated anatomy prone to pain/injury).

Look at the posi...