trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Epistemology of evilness
by KatjaGrace — 2012-05-16T04:00:53.000Z

Most everyone seems to think that a big reason for bad things happening in the world is that some people are bad. Yet I almost never see advice for telling whether you yourself are a bad person, or for what to do about it if you seem to be one. If there are so many bad people, isn’t there a very real risk that you are one of them?

Perhaps the model is one where you automatically know whether you are good or bad, and simply choose which to be. So the only people who are bad are those who want to be bad, and know that they are bad. But then if there is this big population of bad people out there who want to be bad, why is so little of the media devoted to their interests? There’s plenty on how to do all the good things that a good person would want to do, such as voting for the benefit of society, looking after your children, buying gifts, expressing gratitude to friends, holding a respectable dinner, pleasing your partner. Yet so little on scamming the elderly, effectively shaking off useless relatives, lying credibly, making money from investments that others are too squeamish to take, hiding bodies. Are the profit-driven corporate media missing out on a huge opportunity?

If there aren’t a whole lot of knowingly bad people out there who want to be bad, and could use some information and encouragement, then either there aren’t bad people at all, or bad people don’t know that they are bad or don’t want to be bad. The former seems unlikely, by most meanings of ‘bad’. If the latter is true, why are people so blase about the possibility that they themselves might be bad?

***

Prompted by the excellent book Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, in which there is much talk of avoiding becoming ‘dark’, in stark contrast to the world that I’m familiar with. If you enjoy talking about HPMOR, and live close to Pittsburgh, come to the next Pittsburgh Less Wrong Meetup.
Covariance in your sample vs covariance in the general population
by RomeoStevens — 2012-05-16T00:17:34.009Z

A popular-media take on a subtle problem in sampling. I found the graph quite illustrative.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/05/when-correlation-is-not-causation-but-something-much-more-screwy/256918/
A thought about Internet procrastination
by RolfAndreassen — 2012-05-15T21:46:22.833Z

Perhaps this is already well known, but it occurred to me yesterday and I thought I'd share it. The Internet seems particularly virulent as a form of procrastination; indeed, if, say, chatting at watercoolers took up as much time in the average office worker's day, we wouldn't make jokes about it. What is the feature that makes it so deadly? I suggest that it is the random reinforcement schedule: Every five minutes you "press the lever", that is, check forum X or site Y. And every six or seven checks you get the reward: Someone posted something interesting! This random reinforcement is ideal for creating addiction; thus, for example, slot machines.

As a way to avoid this effect, I'm going to strive not to do anything on the interwebs except at precisely defined times, or unless I have a specific goal in mind, say "Look up this method signature". Wish me luck, or better still, wish me willpower. :)
Food4Me - personalised nutrition initiative
by listic — 2012-05-15T21:07:44.963Z

I stumbled on this project during my research: food4me.org

The complete mapping of the human genome sequence in 2000 introduced the possibility of individualised medicine, including personalised nutrition. During this time the field of “nutrigenomics” emerged, which examines the relationship between food and gene expression. Many were hopeful about the ability to plan diet recommendations based on an individual’s genetic profile.

However, the promise of personalised nutrition has failed to develop as a commercial service, and matching dietary advice to genetic profiles has proven difficult. Some companies offer genetic mapping and health reports, but these services are often based on inaccurate information.

There is a need to comprehensively analyse the opportunities and challenges in the field of personalised nutrition. In addition, the fundamental question remains, “how can we best use our current understanding of food, genes, and physical traits to design healthier diets tailored for each individual?”

To address these concerns, Food4Me has gathered an international group of experts to survey the current knowledge of personalised nutrition, and to explore the application of individualised nutrition advice. The Food4Me project will also investigate consumer attitudes and produce new scientific tools for implementation.
Overview article on FAI in a popular science magazine (Hebrew)
by JoshuaFox — 2012-05-15T11:09:51.759Z

A new article which I wrote just appeared in Hebrew in Galileo, Israel's top popular science magazine, in hardcopy.

It is titled "Superhuman Intelligence, Unhuman Intelligence" (Super- and un- are homophones in Hebrew, a bit of wordplay.)

You can read it here. [Edit: Here's an English version on the Singularity Institute site.]

The cover art, the "I Robot" images, and the tag line ("Artificial Intelligence: Can we reign in the golem") are a bit off; I didn't choose them; but that's par for the course.

To the best of my knowledge, this is the first feature article overviewing FAI in any popular-science publication (whether online or hardcopy).

Here is the introduction to the article. (It avoids weasel words, but all necessary caveats are given in the body of the article).

In coming decades, engineers will build an entity with intelligence on a level which can compete with humans. This entity will want to improve its own intelligence, and will be able to do so. The process of improvement will repeat, until it reaches a level far above that of humans; the entity will then be able to achieve its goals efficiently. It is thus essential that its goals are good for humanity. To guarantee this, it is necessary to define the correct goals before this intelligence is built.
General purpose intelligence: arguing the Orthogonality thesis
by Stuart_Armstrong — 2012-05-15T10:23:27.997Z

Note: informally, the point of this paper is to argue against the instinctive "if the AI were so smart, it would figure out the right morality and everything will be fine." It is targeted mainly at philosophers, not at AI programmers. The paper succeeds if it forces proponents of that position to put forwards positive arguments, rather than just assuming it as the default position. This post is presented as an academic paper, and will hopefully be published, so any comments and advice are welcome, including stylistic ones! Also let me know if I've forgotten you in the acknowledgements.

Abstract: In his paper “The Superintelligent Will”, Nick Bostrom formalised the Orthogonality thesis: the idea that the final goals and intelligence levels of agents are independent of each other. This paper presents arguments for a (slightly narrower) version of the thesis, proceeding through three steps. First it shows that superintelligent agents with essentially arbitrary goals can exist. Then it argues that if humans are capable of building human-level artificial intelligences, we can build them with any goal. Finally it shows that the same result holds for any superintelligent agent we could directly or indirectly build. This result is relevant for arguments about the potential motivations of future agents.

1 The Orthogonality thesis

The Orthogonality thesis, due to Nick Bostrom (Bostrom, 2011), states that:

Intelligence and final goals are orthogonal axes along which possible agents can freely vary: more or less any level of intelligence could in principle be combined with more or less any final goal.

It is analogous to Hume’s thesis about the independence of reason and morality (Hume, 1739), but applied more narrowly, using the normatively thinner concepts ‘intelligence’ and ‘final goals’ rather than ‘reason’ and ‘morality’.

But even ‘intelligence’, as generally used, has too many connotations. A better term would be efficiency, or instrumental rationality, or the ability to effectively solve problems given limited knowledge and resources (Wang, 2011). Nevertheless, we will be sticking with terminology such as ‘intelligent agent’, ‘artificial intelligence’ or ‘superintelligence’, as they are well established, but using them synonymousl...
I Stand by the Sequences
by Grognor — 2012-05-15T10:21:26.469Z

Edit, May 21, 2012: Read this comment by Yvain.

Forming your own opinion is no more necessary than building your own furniture.

- Peter de Blanc

There's been a lot of talk here lately about how we need better contrarians. I don't agree. I think the Sequences got everything right and I agree with them completely. (This of course makes me a deranged, non-thinking, Eliezer-worshiping fanatic for whom the singularity is a substitute religion. Now that I have admitted this, you don't have to point it out a dozen times in the comments.) Even the controversial things, like:

I think the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is the closest to correct and you're dreaming if you think the true answer will have no splitting (or I simply do not know enough physics to know why Eliezer is wrong, which I think is pretty unlikely but not totally discountable).

I think cryonics is a swell idea and an obvious thing to sign up for if you value staying alive and have enough money and can tolerate the social costs.

I think mainstream science is too slow and we mere mortals can do better with Bayes.

I am a utilitarian consequentialist and think that if allow someone to die through inaction, you're just as culpable as a murderer.

I completely accept the conclusion that it is worse to put dust specks in 3^^^3 people's eyes than to torture one person for fifty years. I came up with it independently, so maybe it doesn't count; whatever.

I tentatively accept Eliezer's metaethics, considering how unlikely it is that there will be a better one (maybe morality is in the gluons?)

"People are crazy, the world is mad," is sufficient for explaining most human failure, even to curious people, so long as they know the heuristics and biases literature.

Edit, May 27, 2012: You know what? I forgot one: Gödel, Escher, Bach is the best.

There are two tiny notes of discord on which I disagree with Eliezer Yudkowsky. One is that I'm not so sure as he is that a rationalist is only made when a person breaks with the world and starts seeing everybody else as crazy, and two is that I don't share his objection to creating conscious entities in the form of an FAI or within an FAI. I could explain, but no one ever discusses these things, and they don't affect any important conclusions. I also think the sequences are badly-organized and you should just read them c...
Group rationality diary, 5/14/12
by cata — 2012-05-15T03:01:19.152Z

Background: I and many other attendees at the CFAR rationality minicamp last weekend learned a lot about applied rationality, and made big personal lists of things we wanted to try out in our everyday lives. I think that a regular (weekly or maybe semi-weekly) post where people mention any new interesting habits, decisions, and actions they have taken recently would be cool as a supplement to this; it ought to be rewarding for people to be able to write a list of the cool things they did, and I expect it'll also be interesting for other people to peek in and see the sorts of goals and self-modifications people are working on. Others at minicamp seemed enthusiastic about the idea, so I hope it takes off. Feel free to meta-discuss whether this is a good idea or if it can be done better.

Addendum 5/15: By the way, non-minicamp people should feel free to post too! I am highly certain that minicamp attendees are not the only ones working on interesting things in their lives.

This is the public group instrumental rationality diary for the week of May 14th. It's a place to record and chat about it if you have done, or are actively doing, things like:

Established a useful new habit

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

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

Optimized some part of a common routine or cached behavior

Consciously changed your emotions or affect with respect to something

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

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

Tried doing any of the above and failed

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

Discussion's likely to continue gradually through the week, so try to remember to check back now and then!
Mega Meetup : Summer Festival, hosted by New York
by Raemon — 2012-05-15T02:33:02.082Z

Discussion article for the meetup : New York Summer Festival Megameetup

WHEN: Saturday, June 23rd 2012, 1 PM (as well as additional meetups the surrounding days)

WHERE: Central Park, New York, NY

The weekend of June 23rd, the New York Less Wrong community will be hosting a summer festival. Less Wrongers from around the world are invited to intend. Features include:

A Saturday of sun and fun in Central Park. (Unless rain is forecast, in which case this will be on Sunday).

Picnic Lunch. Share food and swap stories with Less Wrong folks. Engage in intellectual discussion while stimulating your monkey brain's desire for tribal bonding.

Compete in feats of strength and sport.

Singing and dancing.

While the main outdoor event will be on Saturday the 23rd, other meetups and parties will likely occur in surrounding days. There will almost certainly be a gatherings on Thursday the 21st and Friday the 22nd. More information will be available as we get a better headcount.

Let us know if you're thinking of coming, so that we can get an approximate headcount and plan logistics.

If you'll be in New York any length of time, you may want to join the New York mailing list, to learn about additional meetups.

Discussion article for the meetup : New York Summer Festival Megameetup
Meetup : Garden grove meetup
by jimmy — 2012-05-15T02:17:14.042Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Garden grove meetup

WHEN:
22 May 2012 07:18:15PM (-0700)

WHERE:
Brookhurst and Garden Grove 10130 Garden Grove Blvd, Garden Grove, CA 92844

At Genki Living. For Snacks and Drinks with light discussion on how to properly have a meetup and what to meetup about.

Discussion article for the meetup : Garden grove meetup
[SEQ RERUN] My Childhood Role Model
by MinibearRex — 2012-05-15T01:23:42.606Z

Today's post, My Childhood Role Model was originally published on 23 May 2008. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):

I looked up to the ideal of a Bayesian superintelligence, not Einstein.

Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).
This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was That Alien Message, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.
Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.
[LINK] International variation in IQ – the role of parasites
by David_Gerard — 2012-05-14T12:08:34.573Z

This is interesting, I wonder if there's anything to it: International variation in IQ – the role of parasites (paper) by Christopher Hassall of U. Carleton.

It strikes me as the sort of thing that could be as big an issue as lead in the environment. Raise the sanity waterline: improve health!
How many people here agree with Holden? [Actually, who agrees with Holden?]
by private_messaging — 2012-05-14T11:44:21.320Z

I was wondering - what fraction of people here agree with Holden's advice regarding donations, and his arguments? What fraction assumes there is a good chance he is essentially correct? What fraction finds it necessary to determine whenever Holden is essentially correct in his assessment, before working on counter argumentation, acknowledging that such investigation should be able to result in dissolution or suspension of SI?

It would seem to me, from the response, that the chosen course of action is to try to improve the presentation of the argument, rather than to try to verify truth values of the assertions (with the non-negligible likelihood of assertions being found false instead). This strikes me as very odd stance.

Ultimately: why SI seems certain that it has badly presented some valid reasoning, rather than tried to present some invalid reasoning?

edit: I am interested in knowing why people agree/disagree with Holden, and what likehood they give to him being essentially correct, rather than a number or a ratio (that would be subject to selection bias).
Meetup : Melbourne social meetup
by toner — 2012-05-14T08:57:32.589Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Melbourne social meetup

WHEN:
18 May 2012 07:00:00PM (+1000)

WHERE:
see mailing list, Carlton VIC 3053

All are welcome (especially new people!) this Friday 18 May from 7pm at my place for our monthly social meetup. Join our google group for the address. If you have any trouble getting in, you can call me on 0412 996 288.

BYO drinks and games. We'll get some kind of take-away for dinner.

(Sorry to not post earlier: we had some miscommunication about who would make the post.)

Discussion article for the meetup : Melbourne social meetup
[SEQ RERUN] That Alien Message
by MinibearRex — 2012-05-14T03:06:43.452Z

Today's post, That Alien Message was originally published on 22 May 2008. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):

Einstein used evidence more efficiently than other physicists, but he was still extremely inefficient in an absolute sense. If a huge team of cryptographers and physicists were examining a interstellar transmission, going over it bit by bit, we could deduce principles on the order of Galilean gravity just from seeing one or two frames of a picture. As if the very first human to see an apple fall, had, on the instant, realized that its position went as the square of the time and that this implied constant acceleration.

Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).
This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was Einstein's Speed, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.
Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.
Q&A with Aubrey de Grey on May 15
by Username — 2012-05-13T20:45:34.280Z

EDIT2: The video has now been posted, you can watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tsI_28O3Ws

EDIT3: I have typed up a transcript for this video, you can see it in this google doc or in the comments here.

Just a heads up to the lesswrong community. Dr. Aubrey de Grey will be doing an AMA (Ask Me Anything) on reddit this upcoming Tuesday the 15th, scheduled for 9am EST. He will be doing a video-style response, which likely means that he will take the top voted questions and post his responses on youtube. When the AMA starts, you will be able to find it posted on http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/ . I will update this post with links to the question thread and video response when they go live.

EDIT: Ask Aubrey de Grey your questions here: Ask Aubrey de Grey, Chief Science Officer, SENS Foundation, Anything! He will be taking the top voted questions and answering them later this week in a video response. I will update this post then.
Petition:  Off topic area
by  — 2012-05-13T18:41:29.128Z

Petition: LW should introduce a dedicated off topic area

Why?

1) I want to discuss various topics with people who are both intelligent and rationalist, and i know of no other place where to do it.

2) If find that rationality is getting boring in itself. I need to use it on something.

3) As stated in this comment http://lesswrong.com/lw/btc/how_can_we_get_more_and_better_lw_contrarians/6e3p

the narrow set of topics might actually hurt LW by driving good rationalists away.
Finding Research Papers
by GoldenWolf — 2012-05-13T17:13:43.807Z

So I'm all geared up and ready to go trawl through some academic journals so I can figure out how to tackle a problem or two, and I've realized I completely forgot how to go about it. Not going to a university with paid subscriptions to JSTOR, etc. doesn't help either. So where exactly does one go to access such journals? Is there a cheap way to do this? Thanks.
Cambridge LW: Post-mortem
by benelliott — 2012-05-13T13:10:32.683Z

A brief post-mortem of this weeks LW meet-up.

Topic Selection

This week we had comparatively few people, so what worked this time may not generalise. At the beginning of the meet-up Douglas suggested we use one of his meetup formats. Of the three, skill focus was not usable without preparation, and we voted for small discussions above competitive estimating. After a second vote, we used Douglas' suggested method to decide a topic, rather than our method from last week.

This involved each writing down a suggested topic, revealing them all, and then after a fixed timer expired standing behind our preferred one with not further discussion. Using this method, we eventually agreed unanimously on first organising a LessWrong Punt trip, about which an e-mail should be sent to Cambridge, East Anglia and London LessWrongians, followed by a discussion of rational office politics, specifically whether and how it is worthwhile to attempt to achieve goals through exerting influence on large organisations.

Pre commitments

Once again all pre-commitments were kept, apparently with considerable difficulty on Adam's part. More pre-commitments were made this week, which will once again be posted here to slightly increase the social cost of breaking them.

* Ramana: Send out punting e-mail

* Ben: Post write-up of meeting and continue keeping diary

* Adam: Full note production on courses.
[META] Recent Posts for Discussion and Main
by Oscar_Cunningham — 2012-05-13T10:42:39.986Z

This link

http://lesswrong.com/r/all/recentposts

gives a page which lists all the recent posts in both the Main and Discussion sections. I've posted it in the comments section before, but I decided to put it in a discussion post because it's a really handy way of accessing the site. I found it by guessing the URL.