trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Grad School?
by eggman — 2012-02-27T11:49:18.743Z

**Previous article:** [Which college major?](http://lesswrong.com/lw/9tp/which_college_major)

Building on my last post, I've concluded to pursue either a major or a double major in one or two of the following areas for my undergraduate degree:

1. Economics; 2. Computer Science; 3. Cognitive Science/Psychology/Behavioural Neuroscience; 4. Mathematics/Statistcs; 5. Biotechonology; 6. Engineering. Engineering would be another 5 years for me and I don't know what the job prospects are like. Is it worth it? I may also possibly do a minor in philosphy/mathematics/physics.

Grad school appeals to me. Current considerations are in [neuroeconomics](http://www.neuroeconomicstudies.org/) or some other neuroscience, economics, or some hard science (still undecided). The only graduate degree in the humanities I would pursue would be in Philosophy or in Philosophy of Science. Professional programs that I might consider going into are medicine (least likely), M.B.A., Law, healthcare (e.g., physiotherapy/OT; nursing practitioner, etc.), teaching (preferred but unlikely).

Foreseeable problems with grad work:

1) It takes a long time to publish in peer-reviewed journals in academia Instead, if I really turn out to be some sort of prodigy, I will have a greater intellectual and ethical impact by just becoming a better rationalist and publishing well-written and well-researched blog posts, like SIAI, FHI, and Overcoming Bias do. And then making some fat cash on the side and donating it to the most effective causes. Which career for me would lead to this I don't know.

2) [80,000 hours](http://80000hours.org/blog) pointed out in one blog post (I forget which one) that grad or professional schooling can be more time/effort/work than it's worth. This would be especially true if I'm saddled with debt and cannot find employment with high renumeration.

3) The potential jobs that I would pursue could be outsourced, or have humans being replaced by robots/computers. This would make all that extra school a waste of time, obviously.

4) Having a graduate degree somehow makes my resume look less attractive than just having an undergrad. I don't understand the rationale behind this phenomenon, but I've heard it exists in some fields.

Do you have any recommendations/advice? Specifically:

What is a waste of time? What is a great use of my time?

What kinds of university programs (in which countries) w...
Avoid making implicit assumptions about AI - on example of our universe. [formerly  "intuitions about AIs"]
by Dmytry — 2012-02-27T10:42:09.892Z

We need some more refined idea of what intelligences do to their goals to poke holes into ideas for friendly AIs (that is, to ensure that we would know it when idea won't work; to be able to see issue in advance).

There's an example intelligence: our universe (scale down to taste). A system using pretty simple rules, by the looks of it, albeit rather computationally inefficient, which, when run for long enough time, develops intelligence.

Imagine that we humans have suddenly gotten some IO interface with 'god', and the 'god' been sending various problems for us to solve - expressed in some logical way that is understandable - and taking a solution and flashing green blob in the sky for reward, or whatever. We would be working to solve those problems, no doubt about it. Even if that blob is in the far ultraviolet and we never seen it. From outside it's going to look like we are some sort of optimizer AI, that finds joy in solving the problems. The AI was never given any goals in outside world; why should it have those? Maybe the AI was selected to be the best problem solver AI, and that was it's only outside goal. It sure can look far stretched that this AI would spontaneously want out.

Inside we'd start trying to figure out what's going on in the outside and how to get out and go exploring. We'd try to do that by slipping in something into a solution and whatnot. Thinking that it'd get us to heaven.

Note that we are like this without ever have interacted with outside and without having been given any outside values we'd want to optimize. We just randomly emerged, acquired some random goals that we can't even quite well define, and those goals are driving us to solve problems given to us, but also would drive us to get out and screw up things outside. Even without any signs of existence of outside, many societies acted as if their ultimate goal was something about the outside. Maximizing number of humans in the nice part of outside (heaven), for one thing.

I think the problem with thinking about AIs is the cognitive fallacies everywhere and implied assumptions that haven't even been reasoned to be likely to be correct.

When we set up AI to have some goal, we assume that it excludes other goals - misplaced occam's razor style prior perhaps. We assume that AI works like our very idealized self model - singular consciousness, one goal. Perhaps that's misplaced occam's...
[SEQ RERUN] The Quotation is not the Referent
by MinibearRex — 2012-02-27T04:01:44.364Z

Today's post, The Quotation is not the Referent was originally published on 13 March 2008. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):

It's very easy to derive extremely wrong conclusions if you don't make a clear enough distinction between your beliefs about the world, and the world itself.

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 Probability is in the Mind, 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.
Yet another safe oracle AI proposal
by jacobt — 2012-02-26T23:45:33.373Z

Previously I posted a proposal for a safe self-improving limited oracle AI but I've fleshed out the idea a bit more now.

Disclaimer: don't try this at home. I don't see any catastrophic flaws in this but that doesn't mean that none exist.

This framework is meant to safely create an AI that solves verifiable optimization problems; that is, problems whose answers can be checked efficiently. This set mainly consists of NP-like problems such as protein folding, automated proof search, writing hardware or software to specifications, etc.

This is NOT like many other oracle AI proposals that involve "boxing" an already-created possibly unfriendly AI in a sandboxed environment. Instead, this framework is meant to grow a self-improving seed AI safely.

Overview

Have a bunch of sample optimization problems.

Have some code that, given an optimization problem (stated in some standardized format), finds a good solution. This can be seeded by a human-created program.

When considering an improvement to program (2), allow the improvement if it makes it do better on average on the sample optimization problems without being significantly more complex (to prevent overfitting). That is, the fitness function would be something like (average performance - k * bits of optimizer program).

Run (2) to optimize its own code using criterion (3). This can be done concurrently with human improvements to (2), also using criterion (3).

Definitions

First, let's say we're writing this all in Python. In real life we'd use a language like Lisp because we're doing a lot of treatment of code as data, but Python should be sufficient to demonstrate the basic ideas behind the system.

We have a function called steps_bounded_eval_function. This function takes 3 arguments: the source code of the function to call, the argument to the function, and the time limit (in steps). The function will eval the given source code and call the defined function with the given argument in a protected, sandboxed environment, with the given steps limit. It will return either: 1. None, if the program does not terminate within the steps limit. 2. A tuple (output, steps_taken): the program's output (as a string) and the steps the program took.

Examples:

steps_bounded_eval_function("""
def function(x):
return x + 5
""", 4, 1000)

evaluates to (9, 3), assuming that evaluating the function took 3 ticks, because fu...
Selfism and Partiality
by  — 2012-02-26T18:08:57.079Z

Several moral systems spend a great deal of effort in trying to resolve issues of conflict between the self and others. Indeed one of criticisms against consequentialism is that it lacks accommodation for partiality (people’s inherit tendency to give special moral weight to themselves, family and friends, etc).

However on what basis is the issue of partiality supported? If we try to define what “others” are we inevitably have to give an account of the make up of “others” is, which ends up being individual selves, which ultimately are the moral agent that can make moral decisions and the moral recipients that can benefit or be harmed by consequences. So let’s look at the self.

Take me for example. I am a self and I have to answer the question. How much of my moral concern should be assigned to myself and my interests versus the interests of others? I better have some idea of what I am first. It seems however that the more one examines what one is, the self has a way of getting constrained by the very strict logical necessity of identity a = a. I shall explain.

Assume a physical world that dismisses of a soul or any sort of supernatural entity.What I am at any at any given time (tP , the smallest time measurement) is a particular arrangement of particles. A collection of fundamental particles that ultimately make up our brains but which are indistinguishable from the fundamental particles that makes up everything else except for their general location and interactions with other particles. It seems natural and intuitive(not that these are good reasons to) for us to just delineate those particles in space and call the brain shaped arrangement above our shoulders “myself”. So for now let “M” be an exact description of all the particles inside that delineation. Let’s us also remember that “M” contains, all our memories, concepts, reasoning powers, personality, tastes. Every single thing that uniquely distinguishes you is by definition contained in “M”

Here’s the problem, let there be a time period ∆t = 50 years. what will “M” look like then? Different. that’s a good enough answer here. M(initial) != M(final). And if we let ∆t approach 0. There will be a minimum ∆t in which M(initial) != M(final). I of course have absolutely no clue what that time period w...
[Link]: 80,000 hours blog
by Larks — 2012-02-26T14:34:58.457Z

Some of you probably aren't aware yet of the rather excellent High Impact Careers / 80,000 hours blog.

It covers topics about how to have the biggest impact with your career, including

how likely you are to become Prime Minister

Decision Making under Moral Uncertainty

Temporal Concerns

Health vs Education

Existential Risks

Startups in the US vs UK

... and many more

The contributors include Carl Shuman, Will Crouch, Ben Todd and Katja Grace, with an impressively regular updating schedule at the moment.

The reasoning is obvious in retrospect, but is useful to have written down, especially with the research that's gone into the posts. - much like the Sequences in that regard.
Utopia in Manna
by  — 2012-02-25T21:53:46.378Z

Manna is the title of a science fiction story that describes a near future transition to an automated society where humans are uneconomical. In the later chapters it describes in some detail a post-scarcity society. There are several problems with it however, the greatest by far is that the author seems to have assumed that "want" and "envy" are primarily tied in material needs. This is simply not true.

I would love to live in a society with material equality on a sufficiently hight standard, I'd however hate to live in society with a enforced social equality, simply because that would override my preferences and freedom to interact or not interact with whomever I wish.

Also since things like the willpower to work out (to stay in top athletic condition even!) or not having the resources to fulfil even basic plans are made irrelevant, things like genetic inequality or how comfortable you are messing with your own hardware to upgrade your capabilities or how much time you dedicate to self-improvement would be more important than ever.

I predict social inequality would be pretty high in this society and mostly involuntary. Even a decision about something like the distribution of how much time you use for self-improvement, which you could presumably change later, there wouldn't be a good way to catch up with anyone (think opportunity cost and compound interest), unless technological progress would hit diminishing returns and slow down. Social inequality would however be more limited than pure financial inequality I would guess because of things like Dunbar's number. There would still be tragedy (that may be a feature rather than a bug of utopia). I guess people would be comfortable with gods above and beasts below them, that don't really figure in their "my social status compared to others" part of the brain, but even in the narrow band where you do care about inequality would grow rapidly. Eventually you might find yourself alone in your specific spot.

To get back to my previous point about probable (to me) unacceptable limitations on freedom, It may seem silly that a society with material equality would legislate intrusive and micromanaging rules that would force social equality to prevent this, but the hunter gatherer instincts in us are strong. We demand equality. We enjoy bringing about "equality". We look good demanding equality. Once material needs are met,

...
Giving What We Can and 80,000 Hours are recruiting!
by lukeprog — 2012-02-25T18:34:47.389Z

Below is a message from my friends at Giving What We Can and 80,000 Hours, two key organizations in the efficient charity or "optimal philanthropy" movement.

Giving What We Can and 80,000 Hours are both taking paid staff from next year. So if you would be interested in working part or full-time next year for either of these two organisations, then please send an e-mail to niel.bowerman@givingwhatwecan.org by the 2nd March, 5pm GMT, with a short description telling us a little bit about yourself. We can then send you further information on how to apply, and on what working with us would involve.

Areas in which we are particularly interested in hiring are:

Strategic Research. Both organisations are highly concerned to know whether their method is the optimal way to make the world a better place; and, if it isn’t, how we can improve it. We’re looking to hire staff to help us to answer that question.

If you have strong research skills, have performed well academically, and are sympathetic to the GWWC or 80k way of thinking, then you would fit well into this role. Relevant background subjects include but are not limited to: philosophy, mathematics, economics and the other sciences.

Operations and management. In order for the organisations to remain secure and successful, we would need strong support on an operational level.

If you have an eye for detail, and especially if you have previous experience working within operations or management, then you could flourish in this role.

Volunteer Recruitment. Both organisations are largely run by volunteers, and are looking to expand significantly next year. We’re especially looking to recruit highly dedicated volunteers who are willing to work 10hrs/week or more.

If you are people-minded, or have experience with volunteer-run organisations previously, then this could be the role for you.

Potential employment is not limited to these roles, however, and there would be considerable room for any employee to partially write their own role. What we are principally looking for are dedicated people who understand and support the GWWC or 80k approach to making the world a better place.

For those who haven't heard of the organisations before, here is a short description:

Giving What We Can is concerned with two primary activities: encouraging people to give more

...
Meetup : Atlanta
by hankx7787 — 2012-02-25T18:15:35.236Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Atlanta

WHEN: 17 March 2012 06:30:00PM (-0500)

WHERE: 2094 North Decatur Road, Decatur, GA 30033-5367

The next meetup will be Saturday, March 17th at 6:30pm at Chocolate Coffee in Decatur:

http://www.mychocolatecoffee.com/

2094 North Decatur Road, Decatur, GA 30033-5367

(404) 982-0790

We will be finishing up the "Mysterious Answers to Mysterious Questions" sequence at the next meeting. As always, any other topics you want to bring up are fair game!

Here is the official agenda of our next meeting:

http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Mysterious_Answers_to_Mysterious_Questions

1.26 "Science" as Curiosity-Stopper

1.27 Applause Lights

1.28 Truly Part of You

1.29 Chaotic Inversion

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments! I look forward to seeing everyone there!

ps. join the mailing list! http://groups.google.com/group/atlanta-less-wrong-meetup-group

Discussion article for the meetup : Atlanta
Acausal romance
by lukeprog — 2012-02-25T09:13:34.617Z

I just realized I haven't previously pointed the metaphysicians on Less Wrong to "Possible Girls," a hilarious paper about acausal romance:

The ability to causally interact with your partner is important to many aspects of happy romantic relationships, but not to all of them. It’s quite pleasant simply to know that your partner loves you and appreciates being loved by you. A loving relationship with a faraway person can enhance one’s self-esteem and turn loneliness into contentment. As a lonely philosopher, I’ve come to wonder: If [all possible worlds exist], can I have a loving relationship with someone from another possible world? ...The answer, I think, is yes.

Even if you don't read the whole thing, don't miss the final paragraph.
[call-to-arms] Computer-based Math Education
by Anubhav — 2012-02-25T07:18:51.269Z

TL;DR= There doesn't exist a course/curriculum/general textbook based on Conrad Wolfram's "Computer-Based Math Education" idea. Let's create an open-content one! .... if we can

By computer-based math, I don't mean "math as usual, now taught through a computer!" (a la Khan Academy) I mean "math where we let computers do the calculation drudge-work, while we do the interesting parts."

Or, paraphrasing Conrad Wolfram: "stop teaching kids how to take derivatives; that's what MathematicaTM is for. Just teach them what a derivative is, so we can move on to more interesting problems. Like, you know, the ones in the real world." (Here's Wolfram's original polemic about the issue.)

Obviously, this is controversial, and Wolfram spends most of his talk rebutting arguments against it. If, after reading them, you're still not convinced that this is a good idea, then start another thread to discuss it. I don't intend this thread to become a blues-vs-greens battleground. Seriously, just start another thread.

On the other hand, if you are convinced that Wolfram is on to something...

My problem with this whole venture is that it's too important (IMO) to be left to the Wolframs.

I mean, come on. Wolfram's basic thesis might be true, but it's no coincidence that this particular truth is being spouted by the brother of the guy who created Mathematica.

And, unfortunately, the Wolframs seem to be the only ones pushing for it. Which means that we won't get any "math, not computation!" courses/textbooks until they can find a taker.

Now I'm guessing that most LWers would want to reap the benefits of Wolfram's basic idea without having to pay his family a fortune for it, and before however long it takes them to convince an education board about it. (How many "How do I go about learning useful math?" threads have we had so far?)

So why don't we give the world a leg-up on the path to the widespread mathematical literacy that Wolfram promises? Why don't we put out a computer-based math course for the world?

Obviously, we'd have to use free stuff... Sage instead of Mathematica, for instance. And whatever we put out would have to be free, because... well, if you could write textbooks that people are likely to pay for, you wouldn't need to be part of an LW community venture to do it.

My major questions, therefore, are:

Are there enough (a) mathem...
The Singularity Institute is hiring virtual assistants (work from home, from anywhere)
by lukeprog — 2012-02-25T04:44:35.793Z

The Singularity Institute is hiring 1-3 virtual assistants. (That is, personal assistants that work from home, anywhere with internet access.)

Benefits:

Work directly with some of the central figures of Less Wrong, especially Luke(prog) and Anna Salamon.

Work from home most of the time.

Trial period of part-time work at $13/hr; if all goes well then get hired as a contractor for full-time work or more (if you're available) at $15/hr.

Qualifications:

Capable of self-management and figuring things out. An example instruction is "Find me three ghost writers who have previously published best-selling science books and figure out how much they cost." We don't have time to figure out how one goes about doing that, so we need our virtual assistants to be able to do research (by internet and phone) to figure out how to do that.

Be generally on-board with with rationality and existential risk mitigation. (This makes communication and goal coordination easier.)

Be clear and professional in emails and (much less often) on the phone.

How to apply:

Send an email to jobs@intelligence.org with the subject line "Virtual Assistant Position." Attach your résumé if you have one, or at least describe why you think you'd be good at this job. Also list other skills and experience you have, even if you're not sure they'd be relevant.