trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Coordination attempt: Facilitating conversational splinters in Gathertown
by Yuye — 2021-01-24T07:35:41.780Z

Someone once wrote a LessWrong post saying that people, individually polled, will prefer small group conversations at events – but in practice form large clumps where the majority of people are disengaged but can't coordinate to leave in chunks, probably because coordination competes for a floor contested in proportion to the group's size. (Link welcome, I can't find it.) Gathertown seems to exacerbate this because you can stack people more densely.

I have two suggestions:

Stand your avatar off several squares to the side (while still sharing videospace) when you want to splinter (but only if enough other people will do it as well), and move out at the same time when ceil(N/4) are in that would-be splinter.
Broadcast in the chat what topic you want to discuss for your next conversation.

Optionally, a participant count cap?
Optionally, people who want to leave their current group will say '+1' and follow you. This introduces contention for chat space, but lets people who are want to leave their current group avoid the problem of trekking across the event space and finding a group as big as their previous ones.

(And one tongue in cheek – Gathertown should have escalators or gusts of wind that tend to slowly scatter people, and they need to actively choose to stay with a group or conversation.)

It would be most effective if the host decided on a strategy and broadcast it to participants as the default, but if they don't it seems fine for participants to advertise that they'll be using a particular strategy to avoid this trap.
Technological stagnation: Why I came around
by jasoncrawford — 2021-01-23T22:05:59.364Z
Link: https://rootsofprogress.org/technological-stagnation

“We wanted flying cars, instead we got 140 characters,” says Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund, expressing a sort of jaded disappointment with technological progress. (The fact that the 140 characters have become 280, a 100% increase, does not seem to have impressed him.)

Thiel, along with economists such as Tyler Cowen (The Great Stagnation) and Robert Gordon (The Rise and Fall of American Growth), promotes a “stagnation hypothesis”: that there has been a significant slowdown in scientific, technological, and economic progress in recent decades—say, for a round number, since about 1970, or the last ~50 years.

When I first heard the stagnation hypothesis, I was skeptical. The arguments weren’t convincing to me. But as I studied the history of progress (and looked at the numbers), I slowly came around, and now I’m fairly convinced. So convinced, in fact, that I now seem to be more pessimistic about ending stagnation than some of its original proponents.

In this essay I’ll try to capture both why I was originally skeptical, and also why I changed my mind. If you have heard some of the same arguments that I did, and are skeptical for the same reasons, maybe my framing of the issue will help.

Stagnation is relative

To get one misconception out of the way first: “stagnation” does not mean zero progress. No one is claiming that. There wasn’t zero progress even before the Industrial Revolution (or the civilizations of Europe and Asia would have looked no different in 1700 than they did in the days of nomadic hunter-gatherers, tens of thousands of years ago).

Stagnation just means slower progress. And not even slower than that pre-industrial era, but slower than, roughly, the late 1800s to mid-1900s, when growth rates are said to have peaked.

Because of this, we can’t resolve the issue by pointing to isolated advances. The microwave, the air conditioner, the electronic pacemaker, a new cancer drug—these are great, but they don’t disprove stagnation.

Stagnation is relative, and so to evaluate the hypothesis we must find some way to compare magnitudes. This is difficult.

Only 140 characters?

“We wanted flying cars, instead we got a supercomputer in everyone’s pocket and a global communications network to connect everyone on the planet to each other and to the whole of the world’s knowledge, art, philosophy and culture.” When you put it that way, it doesn’t sound so bad.

Indeed, the di...
Moral basis for regulating social platforms
by solus — 2021-01-23T20:39:27.639Z

Many people seem to be stuck between two opposing thoughts:

It feels wrong that social platforms have the power to arbitrary filter content.
They are private companies, so they have the right to do as they please.

How do we reconcile those ideas?

Let's look at two entrepreneurs starting new businesses.

Mr Baker invests his savings to open a bakery, and Mr Morsy invests his savings to start a hot new Internet company called Meeper.

After all the initial hard work, they both announce their arrivals.

Mr Baker: “Hey, fellow citizens, I am opening a new bakery to bake delicious cakes in the form of raccoons. I use only the best ingredients! Come and take a bite of a tasty raccoon!”

Mr Morsy: “Hey, geeks and geekettes, I created a website where everybody can have a voice. We have the best programmers! Come and post something!”

Naturally, people are interested in both companies. Might not be the same people, but still. They come, buy a cake and enjoy it quite a bit. They load their browser, post a picture of a kitten and enjoy it quite a bit as well.

This all seems very similar, but there is one crucial difference. Mr Baker baked his cakes only with his bare hands. He created some extra value which exceeded the combined value of flour and sugar, because those two are not particularly tasty when you just pour them into your mouth and try to chew.

Mr Morsy made the site with his bare hands too, and he too created additional value, because before Meeper it was next to impossible to meep online. But, no matter how good his site is, how much effort he put into it, its value will be minuscule without people and their posts.

Your picture of a kitten added a little bit of value to Meeper. Not only that, but, surprisingly, there are some people in the world who would like to know what the hell you are meeping about – your friends, your family, your secret lover and your psychiatrist. You make the site a little bit more valuable for them. They come, they read, they join.

You, however pathetic your life might be, actually helped Mr Morsy grow his business. For free. Granted, Mr Morsy also provided his site for you for free, so the deal seems fair. You like Mr Morsy, he seems like a nice guy with some ideals that closely match your own. Everybody should have a voice, right?

Now let's jump 10 years into the future.

Mr Baker's bakery is very popular and he opened several more in different plac...
Lessons I've Learned from Self-Teaching
by TurnTrout — 2021-01-23T19:00:55.559Z

In 2018, I was a bright-eyed grad student who was freaking out about AI alignment. I guess I'm still a bright-eyed grad student freaking out about AI alignment, but that's beside the point.

I wanted to help, and so I started levelling up. While I'd read Nate Soares's self-teaching posts, there were a few key lessons I'd either failed to internalize or failed to consider at all. I think that implementing these might have doubled the benefit I drew from my studies.

I can't usefully write a letter to my past self, so let me write a letter to you instead, keeping in mind that good advice for past-me may not be good advice for you.

Make Sure You Remember The Content

TL;DR: use a spaced repetition system like Anki. Put in cards for key concepts and practice using the concepts. Review the cards every day without fail. This is the most important piece of advice.

The first few months of 2018 were a dream: I was learning math, having fun, and remaking myself. I read and reviewed about one textbook a month. I was learning how to math, how to write proofs and read equations fluently and think rigorously.

I had so much fun that I hurt my wrists typing up my thoughts on impact measures. This turned a lot of my life upside-down. My wrists wouldn't fully heal for two years, and a lot happened during that time. After I hurt my wrists, I became somewhat depressed, posted less frequently, and read fewer books.

When I looked back in 2019/2020 and asked "when and why did my love for textbooks sputter out?", the obvious answer was "when I hurt my hands and lost my sense of autonomy and became depressed, perchance? And maybe I just became averse to reading that way?"

The obvious answer was wrong, but its obvious-ness stopped me from finding the truth until late last year. It felt right, but my introspection had failed me.

The real answer is: when I started learning math, I gained a lot of implicit knowledge, like how to write proofs and read math (relatively) quickly. However, I'm no Hermione Granger: left unaided, I'm bad at remembering explicit facts / theorem statements / etc.

I gained implicit knowledge but I didn't remember the actual definitions, unless I actually used them regularly (e.g. as I did for real analysis, which I remained quite fluent in and which I regularly use in my research). Furthermore, I think I coincidentally hit steeply diminishi...
Everything Okay
by Zvi — 2021-01-23T14:50:09.375Z

Okay is a key concept for which we lack a good detailed handle.

There seems to be some sort of switch in brains, certainly in mine, that goes between modes of Okay and Not Okay. Being in Not Okay Mode is a giant ball of stress that makes it impossible to relax and demands attention.

When I hear talk that some problem exists, my first thought often has nothing to do with the substance of the problem. Instead, I feel instantly stressed and upset that someone has taken my perfectly pleasant Okay Mode existence, and declared that we are in Not Okay Mode.

Even if the real content of the problem is trivial.

There is an intense desire to get back to Okay Mode.

Even if that means one must be in Okay Mode by making Not Okay be Okay. Even if that means destroying all possible superior outcomes so that the bad outcome is now seen as acceptable.

Thus:

“Tell me everything is going to be okay.”

“Everything is going to be okay.”

What does that even mean?

It is a request for permission to enter or remain in Okay Mode. That requires unpacking.

When one says this, for what value of ‘everything’ and what value of ‘okay’ is this meant?

Does the future tense matter here? If everything is going to be okay, is everything also by implication okay now, or not? If we have to ask about whether things are going to be okay in the future, does that imply they are definitely not okay now?

Here are some possibilities that I think are central at least some of the time for what the question means.

A: Is ‘everything’ ‘okay’ in a way that is potentially meaningful in general but meaningless in a given context? The way that someone who experiences Kensho could say that everything was okay regardless of the current world state and value of everything, or that one might say that God has a plan? How central a feature of the basket of things called ‘enlightenment’ is the ability to label everything as ‘okay’ in a way your emotions will accept, and avoid the consequences of failing to do that?

B: Is ‘everything’ ‘okay’ in a way that is meaningful in a more specific context, but is a relatively weak claim meant to provide perspective? As in, yeah, I understand that sucks a lot, but look at the bigger picture and the things that actually matter are still ‘okay’. You spilled some milk, and the milk isn’t okay, but the relevant value of ‘everything’ does not need to include the milk, because the milk i...
Who should you expect to spend your life with?
by KatjaGrace — 2021-01-23T09:00:41.659Z

Striking things about the figure below, which I got from Our World in Data, on time use:

People spend increasing time alone over their whole lives, with the exception of roughly their twenties. This surprises me a bit because it seems like people like spending time with other people, and I would expect them to increasingly succeed at it with experience and time to acquire partners and families and friends.

From 31 to 45, people spend more time with children1 on average than they spend with any other category of person, including for instance partners and colleagues.

You might think all this children time would be substituting for some partner time, but as the children time swoops downward by three quarters, partner time stays about the same.

People are at a relationship-time-steady-state between about thirty and sixty. I imagine that many people start relationships in that time, so does that mean that they also stop them at about the same rate, or gradually reduce time with their partners at a rate matching others’ forming of new relationships? Are people radically less likely to start relationships after about thirty?

People spend broadly decreasing time with every group except their partner over time, from some early peak for each trend—in the teenage years for friends and family, and in the 20s and 30s for colleagues and children. I wonder how many people just like being alone and with their partners more than most other options, and steadily optimize for that, once they have been sociable enough to find a partner in their early years.

Coworker time peaks at age 25-30 and goes slowly downward before the retirement descent. Is that from people dropping out of the workforce? Earning themselves a nice private office? Some difference between junior and senior roles?

People spend fairly consistent time with their friends after a decline from 18 to 40. Retirement doesn’t increase it. Spending three hours a day fewer with children doesn’t increase it. I guess those things go to solitude.

In other news, Our World In Data seems awesome.

I’m guessing that this means ‘any children’ rather than ‘their own children’, because the rate for 15 year olds seems high ↩
Sunzi's《Methods of War》- The Army's Form
by lsusr — 2021-01-23T06:47:24.960Z

This is a translation of Chapter 4 of The Art of War by Sunzi. No English sources were used.

孙子曰：昔之善战者，先为不可胜，以待敌之可胜。

Do not first seek victory. Establish conditions such that you cannot lose.

不可胜在己，可胜在敌。

Then await an opportunity to win.

故善战者，能为不可胜，不使敌之必可胜。

You can, with skill, survive, but only the enemy can permit your victory.

故曰：胜可知，而不可为。

Victory can be foreseen, but cannot be forced.

不可胜者，守也；可胜者，攻也。

If you cannot win, defend. If you can win, attack.

守则不足，攻则有余。

Defend when your forces are insufficient. Attack when your forces are ample.

善守者，藏于九地之下，善攻者，动于九天之上，故能自保而全胜也。

The capable defender hides under the nine earths. The capable attacker strikes from the nine heavens. Protect yourself and obtain total victory.

见胜不过众人之所知，非善之善者也；战胜而天下曰善，非善之善者也。

Forseeing victory when the masses cannot is an imperfect perfection. Obtaining victory by moving everything under heaven is an imperfect perfection.

故举秋毫不为多力，见日月不为明目，闻雷霆不为聪耳。

It is like like lifting up the vellus hair of autumn's newborn fauna. Noticing the sun and moon does not indicate a keen eye. Hearing thunder does not indicate a keen ear.

古之所谓善战者，胜于易胜者也。故善战者之胜也，无智名，无勇功。

The great generals of history defeated weak enemies. They employed neither cleverness nor courage.

故其战胜不忒，不忒者，其所措必胜，胜已败者也。

They did not win by a hair. Victory was assured.

故善战者，立于不败之地，而不失敌之败也。

Firmly established, all they did was not lose.

是故胜兵先胜而后求战，败兵先战而后求胜。

Victorious armies first seek victory and then fight. Defeated armies first fight and then seek to win.

善用兵者，修道而保法，故能为胜败之政。

Good commanders maintain proper military governance in order to govern the outcome of war.

兵法：一曰度，二曰量，三曰数，四曰称，五曰胜。地生度，度生量，量生数，数生称，称生胜。

You must pay attention to:

the territory

the quantities

the numbers

the names

victory

The territory determines the quantities. The quantities determines the numbers. The numbers determine the names. The names determine victory.

故胜兵若以镒称铢，败兵若以铢称镒。

The victorious soldier weighs a kilo and is called a gram; the defeated soldier weighs a gram and is called a kilo.

胜者之战民也，若决积水于千仞之溪者，形也。

The good general embodies the form an unstoppable river with a thousand tributaries.
Lifelong investments
by jefftk — 2021-01-23T03:40:16.398Z

I love

living in Boston, and find
the benefits go up each year. The longer I've been here, the more
people I know, and the more integrated I am into my local communities.
Friends move here because they like the community we've built and want
to be closer. The house I've slowly been

renovating gets closer and closer to what I
want. I get to know the area better, and now that I have kids I know
lots of fun places to take them.

I love being married to Julia, and the life we've been
building together continues to get richer. She's by far my favorite
person to talk to: with so much conversation over the years that we
have an enormous amount of shared context and I'm so easily
understood. As we continue to get to know each other better, we're
better at helping each other and being the kind of partner the other
needs. We can divide things up,
making complementary investments in skills and responsibilities for
our joint life.

I love my kids, and they just keep getting
better. At four and six they have such deep personalities, interests,
and ways of looking at the world. I love playing with them, showing
them things, teaching them things, seeing how they figure things out.

I love my friends. So many backgrounds, skills, and interests. People
to visit in so many places, people to catch up with after a long time,
people I see almost every day. People to play with, people to ask for
advice and help, people to give advice and help to.

I love my blog. When I have an idea that builds on an earlier one, I
don't have to explain the other idea, I can link to where past me
wrote it up. If I notice something related to something I've been
thinking about, but too small for its own post, I can catalog it as a
comment on an earlier post. I can notice places where my thinking has
changed, and try to figure out why past me had a different view.
People read my posts, find them useful, and leave good comments. Some
of those people start reading regularly, continue leaving good
comments, which attracts others who leave good comments. Being in the
habit of writing means that when I want to communicate the barrier is
low and I have lots of practice. Some ideas I have promoted here have
caught on, and now I can read other people building on them.

I love my work. I've been programming since I was in elementary
school, and I can make computers do what I wan...
Exercise: Taboo "Should"
by johnswentworth — 2021-01-22T21:02:46.649Z

Thankyou to Elizabeth for a great conversation which spurred me to write up this post.

Claim: moral/status/value judgements (like "we should blame X for Y", “Z is Bad”, etc) like to sneak into epistemic models and masquerade as weight-bearing components of predictions.

Example: The Virtue Theory of Metabolism

The virtue theory of metabolism says that people who eat virtuous foods will be rewarded with a svelte physique, and those who eat sinful foods will be punished with fat. Obviously this isn’t meant to be a “real” theory; rather, it’s a tongue-in-cheek explanation of the way most laypeople actually think about diet and body weight.

Lest ye think this a strawman, let’s look at some predictions made by the virtue theory.

As a relatively unbiased first-pass test, we’ll walk through

Haidt’s five moral foundations

and ask what predictions each of these would make about weight loss when combined with the virtue theory. In particular, we’ll look for predictions about perceived healthiness which seem orthogonal (at least on the surface) to anything based on actual biochemistry.

Care/harm: food made with care and love is healthier than food made with indifference. For instance, home cooking is less fattening than restaurant, or factory-farmed meat is more fattening than free-range chicken.
Fairness: food made fairly is healthier than food made unfairly. For instance, “fair-trade” foods are less fattening.
Loyalty/ingroup: food made by members of an ingroup is more healthy. For instance, local produce is less fattening.
Authority/respect: food declared “good” by legitimate experts/authorities is more healthy. Fun fact for American readers: did you know the original food pyramid was created by the department of agriculture (as opposed to the department of health), and bears an uncanny resemblance to the distribution of American agricultural output?
Sanctity/purity: impure or unnatural food is unhealthy. For instance, preservatives, artificial flavors, and GMO foods are all more fattening, whereas organic food is less fattening.

Maybe I’m cherry-picking or making a just-so story here, but… these sound like things which I think most people do believe, and they’re pretty central to the stereotypical picture of a “healthy diet”. That’s not to say that there isn’t also some legitimate biochemistry sprinkled into peoples’ food-beliefs, but even then it seems like the real parts are...
#4: Introduction to life insurance for cryonics
by mingyuan — 2021-01-22T20:58:05.529Z

This is post 4 of 10 in my cryonics signup sequence, and the first of five posts on life insurance. I know that sounds like a lot. It's gonna be okay.

Introduction

Why life insurance?

There are multiple ways to fund your cryopreservation, but most people use life insurance "because it requires no sizeable up front assets." So I'll be focusing on life insurance, which is a likely-unfamiliar bureaucratic labyrinth. Be aware that most people who buy permanent life insurance are using it as an investment vehicle, and as such, a lot of the advice out there just doesn't apply to you.

For information about alternative payment options for Alcor and CI – particularly relevant if you have enough cash to fund your cryopreservation in full right now – see Appendix B. If you are using KrioRus you can skip the next five posts, since KrioRus has

its own payment structure

.

What is life insurance?

In brief, when you take out a life insurance policy, you pay an insurance company a monthly fee, in exchange for them paying out a lump sum to someone when you die. In the case of cryonics, this sum is paid to your cryonics provider, in order to cover your cryopreservation.

The moment you make your first payment, your beneficiary is entitled to the full death benefit amount, even if you die the next day.

Process overview

The process of obtaining life insurance can be daunting, so I want to lay it out in excruciating detail, roughly divided into three subsections:

Decision process (~4 to 20 hours)

Read my posts on life insurance to get a basic understanding of the landscape
Contact a life insurance agent who's familiar with cryonics
Provide the agent with your personal health information
Talk with the agent to understand your options based on your insurability, financial situation, and personal preferences
Look over quotes/illustrations from your agent
Make a final decision on your policy type, carrier, and death benefit amount

Underwriting process (~6 to 10 weeks)

Tell your agent you'd like to begin the underwriting process
Submit an application by meeting with your agent
Complete a phone interview about your health with someone from ExamOne
Submit to a brief medical exam if your health is in question
Wait

Final steps (~1 hour)

Look over the final policy with your agent
Sign your policy
Send your policy to Alcor/CI

In this post, I'll cover the basics – including how much life insurance you'll nee...