trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Selfish reasons to reject the repugnant conclusion in practice
by AlexMennen — 2014-06-05T06:41:41.682Z

Prerequisite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox

The repugnant conclusion is the proposition that for any well-off population A, and for any quality of life Q which exceeds the minimal quality of a life worth creating (no matter how small the margin), there exists a possible population B with quality of life Q such that it is better from a utilitarian standpoint for B to exist than it is for A to exist. I find the repugnant conclusion convincing, for reasons which have been discussed elsewhere and I will not repeat here.

Consider the path from population A to population A+ to population B described in the linked wikipedia article from the perspectives of members of the above populations. To a member of population A who values the creation of lives worth living, the transition from A to A+ by creating lives worth living is an improvement. From the perspective of an average member of population A+, the transition from A+ to B is neutral; you might gain and you might lose, but on average you break even, and from an altruistic standpoint, it's also break-even. But from the perspective of a member of population A, the composite transition all the way from A to B doesn't look so great. If you accept the repugnant conclusion, then it's a win from an altruistic perspective, but you personally lose out. It may or may not still seem like a good idea overall. (Similarly, even if you personally are not affected, people also care about their friends and family more than about arbitrary strangers, and these people that actually-existing people especially care about are disproportionately likely to also actually exist, so this could be another reason not to transition from A to B, but for simplicity, I'll ignore such considerations for the rest of this post.)

Here we have a variant of the repugnant conclusion: the proposition that for any well-off population A, and for any quality of life Q which exceeds the minimal quality of a life worth creating (no matter how small the margin), there exists a possible population B with quality of life Q such that, if you are a member of A, you should, if given the chance, replace population A with population B and become an arbitrary member of B. Since decisions that affect populations tend to be made by people who already exist at the time, it makes sense to frame population ethics questions from t...
Meetup : Atlanta June meetup - Hacking Motivation
by Adele_L — 2014-06-05T02:34:51.794Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Atlanta June meetup - Hacking Motivation

WHEN:
08 June 2014 07:03:20PM (-0400)

WHERE:
2388 Lawrenceville Hwy. Unit L. Decatur, GA 30033

Oge says:

I recently read “The Motivation Hacker” by Nick Winter, a book which summarizes the state of the art in setting goals and getting our human brains to actually want to accomplish those goals. At this meetup, I’ll give a short talk on the highlights of the book. Afterward, we’ll collaboratively hack on any motivation issues that are brought to the group (so bring yours).

I can’t wait to see y’all again!

If you have trouble getting to the venue, contact me at 404-542-6392

You can nominate future meetup topics here.

Discussion article for the meetup : Atlanta June meetup - Hacking Motivation
[Meta] The Decline of Discussion: Now With Charts!
by Gavin — 2014-06-04T22:02:49.581Z

[Based on Alexandros's excellent dataset.]

I haven't done any statistical analysis, but looking at the charts I'm not sure it's necessary. The discussion section of LessWrong has been steadily declining in participation. My fairly messy spreadsheet is available if you want to check the data or do additional analysis.

Enough talk, you're here for the pretty pictures.

The number of posts has been steadily declining since 2011, though the trend over the last year is less clear. Note that I have excluded all posts with 0 or negative Karma from the dataset.

The total Karma given out each month has similarly been in decline.

Is it possible that there have been fewer posts, but of a higher quality?

No, at least under initial analysis the average Karma seems fairly steady. My prior here is that we're just seeing less visitors overall, which leads to fewer votes being distributed among fewer posts for the same average value. I would have expected the average karma to drop more than it did--to me that means that participation has dropped more steeply than mere visitation. Looking at the point values of the top posts would be helpful here, but I haven't done that analysis yet.

These are very disturbing to me, as someone who has found LessWrong both useful and enjoyable over the past few years. It raises several questions:

What should the purpose of this site be? Is it supposed to be building a movement or filtering down the best knowledge?

How can we encourage more participation?

What are the costs of various means of encouraging participation--more arguing, more mindkilling, more repetition, more off-topic threads, etc?

Here are a few strategies that come to mind:

Idea A: Accept that LessWrong has fulfilled its purpose and should be left to fade away, or allowed to serve as a meetup coordinator and repository of the highest quality articles. My suspicion is that without strong new content and an online community, the strength of the individual meetup communities may wane as fewer new people join them. This is less of an issue for established communities like Berkeley and New York, but more marginal ones may disappear.

Idea B: Allow and encourage submission of rationalism, artificial intelligence, transhumanism etc related articles from elsewhere, possibly as a separate category. This is how a site like Hacker News stays high engagement, even though man...
The End of Bullshit at the hands of Critical Rationalism
by Stefan_Schubert — 2014-06-04T18:44:29.801Z

The public debate is rife with fallacies, half-lies, evasions of counter-arguments, etc. Many of these are easy to spot for a careful and intelligent reader/viewer - particularly one who is acquainted with the most common logical fallacies and cognitive biases. However, most people arguably often fail to spot them (if they didn't, then these fallacies and half-lies wouldn't be as effective as they are). Blatant lies are often (but not always) recognized as such, but these more subtle forms of argumentative cheating (which I shall use as a catch-all phrase from now on) usually aren't (which is why they are more frequent).

The fact that these forms of argumentative cheating are a) very common and b) usually easy to point out suggests that impartial referees who painstakingly pointed out these errors could do a tremendous amount of good for the standards of the public debate. What I am envisioning is a website like factcheck.org but which would not focus primarily on fact-checking (since, like I said, most politicians are already wary of getting caught out with false statements of fact) but rather on subtler forms of argumentative cheating.

Ideally, the site would go through election debates, influential opinion pieces, etc, more or less line by line, pointing out fallacies, biases, evasions, etc. For the reader who wouldn't want to read all this detailed criticism, the site would also give an overall rating of the level of argumentative cheating (say from 0 to 10) in a particular article, televised debate, etc. Politicians and others could also be given an overall cheating rating, which would be a function of their cheating ratings in individual articles and debates. Like any rating system, this system would serve both to give citizens reliable information of which arguments, which articles, and which people, are to be trusted, and to force politicians and other public figures to argue in a more honest fashion. In other words, it would have both have an information-disseminating function and a socializing function.

How would such a website be set up? An obvious suggestion is to run it as a wiki, where anyone could contribute. Of course, this wiki would have to be very heavily moderated - probably more so than Wikipedia - since people are bound to disagree on whether controversial figures' arguments really are fallacious or not. Pres...
Running the numbers: Cryo vs Discount rate
by RomeoStevens — 2014-06-04T07:54:31.857Z

The following is authored by Colby Davis. I am posting for him because he doesn't have an account with any karma. Someone recently requested numbers on cryo preservation costs. I'll note that my own opinion is that for young people unlikely to die investing money in research is a better bet than investing directly in your own preservation.

Here is the link for the spreadsheet. Either download it or create a copy for yourself to edit.

Hey rationalists, here's the spreadsheet I presented the other night. For those who weren't there but are interested, this is a tool I designed to break down the costs associated with signing up for cryonics under different methods of financing it. Here are some instructions for using it.
Column B is where the user puts all the inputs: age, sex, probability you think that if you are frozen you will someday be successfully revived, and discount rate (for those unfamiliar with the term, this is like the reverse of an interest rate, the rate at which cash flows become less valuable to you as they extend further out into the future).
Column D is the probability that you will die in the next 20 years (the typical term for a term life insurance policy). It is calculated based on the "life table" sheet, which i stole from a government actuarial table online.
Column E is your current life expectancy, the number of additional years you have a roughly 50% chance of surviving through.
Column F is how much the monthly fee for a 20 year, $100,000 life insurance policy would cost you, assuming "exceptional" health, as determined by the top result at http://www.term4sale.com/
Column G is the present value of that policy, using your discount rate. This means that you should be indifferent between paying this amount right now and paying the figure in column F every month for the next 20 years.
Column H is the probability that you will die within the next 20 years AND sometime thereafter be successfully revived from cryogenic suspension, making the heroic assumption that your probability belief in column B is true.
Column I is simply the dollar present value amount spent per 1 percentage point reduction in (permanent) death. This is the value you want to consider most when deciding whether to sign up or not.
The next columns consider the alternative means of paying for a cryonics policy, saving up and investing in the stock market until you have enoug...
Asches to Asches
by Scott Alexander — 2014-06-04T02:16:21.000Z

[Content note: fictional story contains gaslighting-type elements. May induce Cartesian skepticism]

You wake up in one of those pod things like in The Matrix. There’s a woman standing in front of you, wearing a lab coat, holding a clipboard.

“Hi,” she says. “This is the real world. You used to live here. We erased your memories and stuck you in a simulated world for a while, like in The Matrix. It was part of a great experiment.”

“What?” you shout. “My whole life, a lie? How dare you deceive me as part of some grand ‘experiment’ I never consented to?”

“Oh,” said the woman, “actually, you did consent, in exchange for extra credit in your undergraduate psychology course.” She hands you the clipboard. There is a consent form with your name on it, in your handwriting.

You give her a sheepish look. “What was the experiment?”

“You know families?” asks the woman.

“Of course,” you say.

“Yeah,” says the woman. “Not really a thing. Like, if you think about it, it doesn’t make any sense. Why would you care more for your genetic siblings and cousins and whoever than for your friends and people who are genuinely close to you? That’s like racism – but even worse, at least racists identify with a group of millions of people instead of a group of half a dozen. Why should parents have to raise children whom they might not even like, who might have been a total accident? Why should people, motivated by guilt, make herculean efforts to “keep in touch” with some nephew or cousin whom they clearly would be perfectly happy to ignore entirely?”

“Uh,” you say, “not really in the mood for philosophy. Families have been around forever and they aren’t going anywhere, who cares?”

“Actually,” says the woman, “in the real world, no one believes in family. There’s no such thing. Children are taken at birth from their parents and given to people who contract to raise them in exchange for a fixed percent of their future earnings.”

“That’s monstrous!” you say. “When did this happen? Weren’t there protests?”

“It’s always been this way,” says the woman. “There’s never been such a thing as the family. List...
Meetup : Brussels - We meet every month
by Roxolan — 2014-06-03T18:52:56.175Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Brussels - We meet every month

WHEN:
12 January 2019 02:00:00PM (+0200)

WHERE:
Rue des Alexiens 55 1000 Bruxelles

This is a long term meetup announcement to ensure there's always a Brussels meetup visible in the sidebar. We're not sure we'll actually meet on the date given here, but there'll definitely be meetups in the meantime. If this month's meetup hasn't been announced on LW, it's probably just procrastination from the organizer.

We meet every second Saturday of the month at 1pm at "La Fleur en papier doré", close to the Brussels Central station. The meetings are in English to facilitate both French and Dutch speaking members.

Our main web page for meetup announcements and conversations is here.

Discussion article for the meetup : Brussels - We meet every month
Meetup : Berkeley LW meetup - CFAR test session
by pcm — 2014-06-03T18:37:26.222Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Berkeley LW meetup - CFAR test session

WHEN:
04 June 2014 07:00:00PM (-0700)

WHERE:
Berkeley, CA

CFAR is gearing up for a workshop this weekend, and they expect to hold at least one rationality training session Wednesday night (June 4) in order to test their pedagogy. Since this overlaps our usual Less Wrong meetup, it's going to be the main activity of the evening: You're encouraged to attend the beta-testing session(s?) in the couch room; but if you don't want to or if there's too many of us, you can hang out with other Less Wrongers in the CFAR/MIRI common area.
I encourage you to arrive around 7pm at the CFAR office which is at 2030 Addison, 3rd floor, Berkeley, near the Downtown Berkeley BART. If you find yourself locked out, text me at 408 315-8120. Note that the door to the building gets locked at 7pm, so it's easier if you come a few minutes before then.
I'll try to update this with more specifics about the test session(s) if I get them.

Update: there will be a session on 5-minute exercises, and one on reference class forecasting. The plan is to end by 10pm, but these beta sessions have not been known for punctuality in the recent past.

Discussion article for the meetup : Berkeley LW meetup - CFAR test session
Meetup : Brussels - Neuroatypicality
by Roxolan — 2014-06-03T17:40:40.420Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Brussels - Neuroatypicality

WHEN:
14 June 2014 07:40:35PM (+0200)

WHERE:
Rue des Alexiens 55 1000 Bruxelles

According to a 2010 unscientific internet survey, over 5% of LessWrong users have Asperger syndrome, which is maybe 25 times more than the general population.

I know, I know. On a website that's all about hyper-rationality and breaking down social interactions into their game theory origin in order to design an AI that can do them better? Shocking.

In this month's meetup (what little of it we'll spend being on-topic), we will discuss what a boring world it would be if we were all the same, and how to rephrase this saying to appeal to people who think boring is good.

We will meet at 1 pm at "La Fleur en papier doré", close to the Brussels Central station. Depending on the weather, we may also spend some time outside. The meeting will be in English to facilitate both French and Dutch speaking members.

If you are coming for the first time, please consider filling out this one minute form to share your contact information.

The Brussels meetup group communicates through a Google Group.

Meetup announcements are also mirrored on meetup.com

Discussion article for the meetup : Brussels - Neuroatypicality
[LINK] How Do Top Students Study?
by JQuinton — 2014-06-03T15:03:57.477Z

I found this Quora discussion very informative.

2. Develop the ability to become an active reader. Don't just passively read material you are given. But pose questions, develop hypotheses and actively test them as you read through the material. I think this is what another poster referred to when he advised that you should develop a "mental model" of whatever concept they are teaching you. Having a mental model will give you the intuition and ability to answer a wider range of questions than would be otherwise possible if you lacked such a mental model.

Where do you get this model? You creatively develop one as you are reading to try to explain the facts as they are presented to you. Sometimes you have to guess the model based on scarce evidence. Sometimes it is handed to you. If your model is a good one it should at least be able to explain what you are reading.

Having a model also tells you what to look for to disprove it -- so you can be hypersensitive for this disconfirming evidence. In fact, while you are reading you should be making predictions (in the form of one or more scenarios of where the narrative could lead) and carefully checking if the narrative is going there. You should also be making predictions and seeking contradictions to these predictions -- so you can quickly find out if your model is wrong.

Sometimes you may have two or more different models that can explain the evidence, so you task will be to quickly formulate questions that can prove one model while disconfirming the others. I suggest focusing on raising questions that could confirm/disprove the mostly likely one while disproving the others (think: differential diagnoses in medicine).

But once you have such a model that (i) explains the evidence and (ii) passes all the disconfirming tests you can throw at it then you have something you can interpolate and extrapolate from to answer far more than was initially explained to you.

Such models also makes retention easier because you only need to remember the model as opposed to the endless array of facts it explains. Of course, your model could be wrong, but that is why you actively test it as you are reading, and adjust it as necessary. Think of this process as the scientific method being applied by you, to try to discover the truth as best you can..

Sometimes you will still be left with contradictions. I often found speaking to the profes

...
All discussion post titles, points, and dates as an excel sheet
by Alexandros — 2014-06-03T14:38:20.341Z

You can find it here.

Earlier today I wanted to quantify whether lesswrong has stopped being a well kept garden. So I wrote a scraper to produce the above dataset, so that anyone that wants to do the analysis, can.

All data is as of a few minutes ago.

For programmers: You can see the source here, it's made to run on scraperwiki, but it will time out after about 3000 articles. At that point you need to adjust the initial value of the uri variable to be the last uri printed. Repeating this process once more will allow you to reach the end. Have fun.
Wondering what to do with my ability for empathy and understanding people. Have some experience and perhaps opportunity to work with this professionally - advice?
by Raythen — 2014-06-03T09:57:47.404Z

(I've intentionally tried to keep this post concise. Please ask if you want more details about something)

I've done some free NVC-based empathy work starting two years ago (online, via Skype call).
(NVC is a communication method; the specific methods used are empathic listening and reflection).

Lately people told me I'm really good at it, and should with it professionally. I think I would enjoy that, and it does match my career aspirations.

I'm going to have free time over the summer to do something with this if I want to.

(I'm 25. I live in Sweden)

---

My general ideas are along the lines of...

Get more information, potentially connect with people who already work with this and/or similar topics.

Research study/certification options - there are some, though I haven't found one that seems like a good fit for me yet.

Register a corporation - since I already do work that generates value for others, I could open the door to doing it professionally. (Also, the registration is free of charge)

---

I'm not equally good at getting a read for people who I know or converse with only casually (not enough data).

Slow text-only communication (e-mail etc) - can't iterate fast enough. Text chat... might work but loses a lot of bandwidth compared to voice. Voice works best (or doing it in person).

---

I am quite good at understanding people even with few things in common, and across quite sensitive topics (which requires a non-judgemental non-critical approach). The only requirement I guess is that the person actually wants to be deeply understood, and have that understanding reflected back verbally.

---

Some reported benefits
Increased clarity and self-understanding
Inspiration and clarity when it comes to specific goals and actions
Increased awareness of own values

---

So I'm wondering what to do with all this. I could use some thoughts/advice - I the share the rationalist viewpoint on life and most of the rationalist values.

Some additional info
I am a Swedish citizen, which gives me free passage and right of residence within the European Union. I speak good English (and all the empathy work I've

...
Open thread, 3-8 June 2014
by David_Gerard — 2014-06-03T08:57:43.756Z

Previous Open Thread: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/k9x/open_thread_may_26_june_1_2014/

(oops, we missed a day!)

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one.

3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

4. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.
Meetup : Southeast Michigan Meetup 6/8
by Scott Alexander — 2014-06-03T03:16:23.525Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Southeast Michigan Meetup 6/8

WHEN:
08 June 2014 02:00:00PM (-0400)

WHERE:
19334 Angling Street, Livonia, MI

Our more-or-less bimonthly Ann Arbor + Detroit area meetup. Myself and Ozy will be there and we're hoping to get a couple new people from Ann Arbor as well. If it lasts until dinnertime, we'll probably go out for sushi in accordance with the tradition.

No particular topic, but bring games and discussion topics as they interest you.

Discussion article for the meetup : Southeast Michigan Meetup 6/8
The Promoted Posts and the Metaethics sequence now available in audio
by Rick_from_Castify — 2014-06-03T02:00:11.373Z

We are proud to announce audio versions of the Less Wrong Promoted Posts and the Metaethics major sequence, both now available via a Castify Podcast.

The Less Wrong Promoted Posts feed will have every new promoted post which has been tagged with the Creative Commons Attribution License. We'll aim to have them read and to you via the podcast within 48 hours. We've found this to be a good way to keep up with Less Wrong, especially for longer articles like last month's interesting long-form post called "A Dialouge on Doublethink" by BrienneStrohl.

The Metaethics Sequence is the next installment of the sequences we've produced into audio. We now have 7 Less Wrong sequences in audio, with more on their way.

As always we appreciate your support and your feedback: support@castify.co.

Links:

Promoted Posts Subscription: http://castify.co/channels/51-less-wrong

Metaethics sequence: http://castify.co/channels/50-metaethics

Channels page: http://castify.co/channels