trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Weekly LW Meetups
by FrankAdamek — 2013-10-04T16:02:34.883Z

This summary was posted to LW main on September 27th. The following week's summary is here.

Irregularly scheduled Less Wrong meetups are taking place in:

Atlanta Pre-Meetup Museum Field Trip: 28 September 2013 03:00PM
Atlanta Lesswrong September Meetup (2nd of 2): 28 September 2013 06:00PM
Berlin: Fermi paradox discussion: 18 October 2013 07:00PM
Helsinki Meetup: 06 October 2013 02:00PM
Montreal LessWrong - Return from summer break: 01 October 2013 06:00PM
Moscow, Beliefs: 29 September 2013 04:00PM
Tempe Meetup: 27 September 2013 02:00PM

The remaining meetups take place in cities with regular scheduling, but involve a change in time or location, special meeting content, or simply a helpful reminder about the meetup:

Austin, TX: 28 September 2019 01:30PM
Columbus, OH MEGA-MEETUP, Oct 11-14: 12 October 2013 02:33AM
London meetup: thought experiments: 29 September 2013 02:00PM

Locations with regularly scheduled meetups: Austin, Berkeley, Cambridge, MA, Cambridge UK, Columbus, London, Madison WI, Melbourne, Mountain View, New York, Research Triangle NC, Salt Lake City, Seattle, Toronto, Vienna, Washington DC, Waterloo, and West Los Angeles. There's also a 24/7 online study hall for coworking LWers.

If you'd like to talk with other LW-ers face to face, and there is no meetup in your area, consider starting your own meetup; it's easy (more resources here). Check one out, stretch your rationality skills, build community, and have fun!

In addition to the handy sidebar of upcoming meetups, a meetup overview will continue to be posted on the front page every Friday. These will be an attempt to collect information on all the meetups happening in the next weeks. The best way to get your meetup featured is still to use the Add New Meetup feature, but you'll now also have the benefit of having your meetup mentioned in a weekly overview. These overview posts will be moved to the discussion section when the new post goes up.

Please note that for your meetup to appear in the weekly meetups feature, you need to post your meetup before the Friday before your meetup!

If you check Less Wrong irregularly, consider subscribing to one or more city-specific mailing list in order to be notified when an irregular meetup is happening: Atlanta, Berlin, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Frankfurt, Helsinki, Marin CA, Ottawa, Pittsburgh, Portland, South...
Schelling Point Strategy Training
by sixes_and_sevens — 2013-10-04T15:41:23.838Z

There's a category of game-theoretic scenario called Battle of the Sexes, which is commonly used to demonstrate coordination problems. Two cinema-goers, traditionally a husband and wife, have agreed to go to the cinema, but haven't decided on what to see beforehand. Of the two films that are showing, she would rather see King Kong Lives, while he would rather see Big Momma's House 2. Each would rather see their non-preferred film with their spouse than see their preferred film on their own. The payoff matrix is as follows:

Husband

King Kong Lives
Big Momma's House 2

Wife
King Kong Lives
2 / 1
0 / 0

Big Momma's House 2
0 / 0
1 / 2

The two have not conferred beforehand, beyond sharing knowledge of their preferences. They are turning up to the cinema and picking an auditorium in the hope that their spouse is in there. Which should they pick? This is a classic coordination problem. The symmetry of their preferences means there is no stand-out option for them to converge on. There is no Schelling Point.1

Except I'm going to argue that there is.

Shoehorning an example of a Schelling Point into the above scenario, we might imagine that one of the above films being screened is being billed as "an ideal romantic treat to share with your spouse", (which one that would be, I'm not entirely sure), though in the absence of a "natural" Schelling Point, there's no reason we can't make one. All we need is to identify procedures that would reliably elevate one of these options to our attention. Then it becomes a question of selecting which of these procedures is most likely to be selected by the other agent in the scenario.

I am now going to instigate a multidimensional instance of Battle of the Sexes with all the readers of this post. Below are sixteen randomly-ordered films. I am going to select one, and invite you to do the same. The object of the exercise is for all of us to pick the same one. I will identify my selection, and the logic behind it, in rot13 after the list.

Breakfast at Tiffany's
William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
Children of the Corn
An American Werewolf in London
To Kill a Mockingbird
Harold and Maude
The Day the Earth Stood Still
Duck Soup
Highlander
Fantasia
Heathers
Forbidden Planet
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Grosse Pointe Blank
Mrs. Doubtfire

Urer vf na vapbafrdhr...
[LINK] How to increase conscientiousness
by lincolnquirk — 2013-10-04T15:26:16.002Z

I wrote an interactive blog post, How To Increase Conscientiousness, which has some steps which I think might increase your conscientiousness. I'm not sure if it works, but I would love to see some curious low-conscientiousness people try it and post your results here.

If you do it, please do it before reading the comments on this post, as they may contain spoilers.

If you are feeling especially helpful, also take a Big Five personality test like this one and report your percentile result on Conscientiousness.
Meetup : Philadelphia - What Bayesianism taught me
by mare-of-night — 2013-10-04T11:50:25.314Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Philadelphia - What Bayesianism taught me

WHEN:
06 October 2013 01:00:00PM (-0400)

WHERE:
1100 Washington Ave, Philadelphia, PA

We will have a meetup this Sunday, 6 October, at 1pm
at Nam Phuong restaurant, 11th and Washington.

Nam Phuong is on 11th street, a mile south of Market East. It is on the west side of the street, between Washington and Ellsworth.

The discussion prompt is the article (What Bayesianism taught me)[http://lesswrong.com/lw/iat/what_bayesianism_taught_me/].

Discussion article for the meetup : Philadelphia - What Bayesianism taught me
October Monthly Bragging Thread
by linkhyrule5 — 2013-10-04T07:06:06.737Z

Since it had a decent amount of traffic until a good two weeks into September (and I thought it was a good idea), I'm reviving this thread.

Joshua_Blaine:

In an attempt to encourage more people to actually do awesome things (a la instrumental rationality), I am proposing a new monthly thread (can be changed to bi-weekly, should that be demanded). Your job, should you choose to accept it, is to comment on this thread explaining the most awesome thing you've done this month. You may be as blatantly proud of you self as you feel. You may unabashedly consider yourself the coolest freaking person ever because of that awesome thing you're dying to tell everyone about. This is the place to do just that.

Remember, however, that this isn't any kind of progress thread. Nor is it any kind of proposal thread.This thread is solely for people to talk about the awesomest thing they've done all month. not will do. not are working on. have already done. This is to cultivate an environment of object level productivity rather than meta-productivity methods.

So, what's the coolest thing you've done this month?
Writers as scientists
by KatjaGrace — 2013-10-04T05:38:56.000Z

Matthew Yglesias a while back on Quine’s Word and Object:

It’s tempting (and conventional) to imagine language working neatly through such correspondences. Each word refers to some object in the world; each sentence describes a fact. Quine’s somewhat fanciful speculations on radical translation serve to undermine this account of meaning. Language is a social phenomenon, and languages are social practices with no guarantee of such direct correspondences. Quine observes that if we hear of a place where the local inhabitants describe pelicans as their half-brothers, it would be foolish to interpret this as a sign of profound genetic misunderstanding on their part. Instead, we see that their words don’t quite line up with ours, and a concept exists that somehow refers to half-brothers and pelicans alike.

[…] Those of us who try to describe the world for a living aren’t just poor handmaidens of those who try to uncover the truth about it… Rather, the process of description is the process of discovery. Language and science are, together, a joint process of discovery. Quine uses the phrase “ontic decision” to bypass the traditional question of what kinds of things are “real” as opposed to merely nominal. As he puts it, “The quest of a simplest, clearest overall pattern of canonical notation is not to be distinguished from a quest of ultimate categories, a limning of the most general traits of reality.” To paraphrase loosely — no doubt a bit too loosely for the tastes of one of the most precise writers I’ve ever read — a writer’s search for better, clearer, more concise descriptions of what we know is fundamentally of a piece with the searches for new knowledge.

I agree that a writers’ choosing concepts to describe things is in some ways basically similar to the part of science which involves ‘explaining’, or finding simple theories to describe the complexity we see. Both activities can be about spotting regularities in the messy world and re-describing what’s left of the mess with those patterns factored out. However it seems to me that writers’ efforts along these lines are badly constrained by conflicting rules. A scientist might notice that everything falls at the same rate, so they might name this ‘gravity’ and in future just say that all the stuff they describe falls with gravity, instead of describing each trajectory individually. A social co...
How do you say no?
by LoganStrohl — 2013-10-04T03:44:12.712Z

Some people seem to be a bit too generous for their own good. I know a precious few people who are especially good at saying "no" when asked to take on new responsibilities that would put them over their limits. I love working with people like that because I can always trust them to tell me when it would be better for me to find someone else to do the thing. I expect this to be an extremely valuable skill it would probably be good for many of us to understand, learn, and be able to teach to people who really need it.

If you frequently find yourself overburdened, think it's not entirely necessary for you to be doing as much as you are, and can recall a specific instance in the last month where someone asked you to do something and you accepted against your better judgement, I invite you to describe what you were feeling and thinking at the time.

Alternately, if you're an unusually busy and productive person who nevertheless is good at saying "no", I'd like to hear about

a specific example of a time when you said no to new responsibility, what was going on in your head, and how it felt

how exactly you believe you decide whether to take on or reject prospective responsibilities if you have an explicit model

whether you consider yourself more or less empathetic or compassionate than average

whether there was ever a time when you had that "don't know how to say no" problem, and if so what changed
Meetup : Tucson Meetup
by  — 2013-10-03T23:48:29.276Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Tucson Meetup

WHEN:
12 October 2013 02:00:00PM (-0700)

WHERE:
943 E University Blvd #191, Tucson, AZ ‎

This is a first meetup for Tucson. We will meet at a coffee shop near the U of A, "Caffe Luce". As this is a first meeting we will be doing some introductions to start with. As discussion, I would like to focus on the idea of community, and what value it may hold. If attendance and interest is high enough, we will discuss how a community may be built, and our own rationality goals.
I will be there holding at LW sign.

Discussion article for the meetup : Tucson Meetup
Fixing akrasia: damnation to acausal hell
by joaolkf — 2013-10-03T22:34:44.347Z

DISCLAIMER: This topic is related to a potentially harmful memetic hazard, that has been rightly banned from Less Wrong. If you don't know what is, it is more likely you will be fine than not, but be advised. If do know, do not mention it in the comments.

Abstract: The fact that humans cannot precommit very well might be one of our defences against acausal trades. If transhumanists figure out how to beat akrasia by some sort of drug or brain tweaks, that might make them much better at precommitment, and thus more vulnerable. That means solving akrasia might be dangerous, at least until we solve blackmail. If the danger is bad enough, even small steps should be considered carefully.

Strong precommitment and building detailed simulations of other agents are two relevant capabilities humans currently don't have. These capabilities have some unusual consequences for games. Most relevant games only arise when there is a chance of monitoring, commitment and multiple interactions. Hence being in a relevant game often implies cohabiting casual connected space-time regions with other agents. Nevertheless, being able to build detailed simulations of agents allows one to vastly increase the subjective probably this particular agent will have that his next observational moment will be under one's control iff the agent have access to some relevant areas of the logical game theoretic space. This doesn't seem desirable from this agent's perspective, it is extremely asymmetrical and allows more advanced agents to enslave less advanced ones even if they don't cohabit casual connected regions of the universe. Being able to be acausally reached by powerful agent who can simulate 3^^^3 copies of you, but against which you cannot do much is extremely undesirable.

However, and more generally, regions of the block universe can only be in a game with non-cohabiting regions if they are both agents and if they can strong precommit. Any acausal trade depends on precommitment, this is the only way an agreement can go across space-time, it is done on the game-theoretical possibilities space - as I am calling it. In the case I am discussing, a powerful agent would only have reason to even consider acausal trading with an agent if that agent can precommit. Otherwise, there is no other way of ensuring acausal cooperation. If the other agent cannot, beforehand, unde...
Meetup : Durham/RTLW HPMoR discussion, ch. 87-89
by therufs — 2013-10-03T16:45:08.618Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Durham/RTLW HPMoR discussion, ch. 87-89

WHEN:
05 October 2013 12:00:00PM (-0400)

WHERE:
726 Rigsbee Avenue, Durham NC, 27701

Join us for discussion of chapters 87-89 of HPMoR!

Discussion topics invited but not required.

12:00 gather with coffee

12:30 discuss

2:00 adjourn

Join the Google group (low traffic) to have meetup announcements emailed to you! https://groups.google.com/group/rtlw

Discussion article for the meetup : Durham/RTLW HPMoR discussion, ch. 87-89
The best 15 words
by apophenia — 2013-10-03T09:08:34.710Z

People want to tell everything instead of telling the best 15 words. They want to learn everything instead of the best 15 words. In this thread, instead post the best 15-words from a book you've read recently (or anything else). It has to stand on its own. It's not a summary, the whole value needs to be contained in those words.

It doesn't need to cover everything in the book, it's just the best 15 words.

It doesn't need to be a quote, it's just the best 15 words.

It doesn't have to be 15 words long, it's just the best "15" words.

It doesn't have to be precisely true, it's just the best 15 words.

It doesn't have to be the main 15 words, it just has to be the best 15 words.

It doesn't have to be the author's 15 words, it just has to be the best 15 words.

Edit: It shouldn't just be a neat quote--the point of the exercise is to struggle to move from a book down to 15 words.

I'll start in the comments below.

(Voted by the Schelling study group as the best exercise of the meeting.)
Crush Your Uncertainty
by  — 2013-10-03T05:48:16.204Z

Bayesian epistemology and decision theory provide a rigorous foundation for dealing with mixed or ambiguous evidence, uncertainty, and risky decisions. You can't always get the epistemic conditions that classical techniques like logic or maximum liklihood require, so this is seriously valuable. However, having internalized this new set of tools, it is easy to fall into the bad habit of failing to avoid situations where it is necessary to use them.

When I first saw the light of an epistemology based on probability theory, I tried to convince my father that the Bayesian answer to problems involving an unknown processes (eg. laplace's rule of succession), was superior to the classical (eg. maximum likelihood) answer. He resisted, with the following argument:

The maximum likelihood estimator plus some measure of significance is easier to compute.

In the limit of lots of evidence, this agrees with Bayesian methods.

When you don't have enough evidence for statistical significance, the correct course of action is to collect more evidence, not to take action based on your current knowledge.

I added conditions (eg. what if there is no more evidence and you have to make a decision now?) until he grudgingly stopped fighting the hypothetical and agreed that the Bayesian framework was superior in some situations (months later, mind you).

I now realize that he was right to fight that hypothetical, and he was right that you should prefer classical max likelihood plus significance in most situations. But of course I had to learn this the hard way.

It is not always, or even often, possible to get overwhelming evidence. Sometimes you only have visibility into one part of a system. Sometimes further tests are expensive, and you need to decide now. Sometimes the decision is clear even without further information. The advanced methods can get you through such situations, so it's critical to know them, but that doesn't mean you can laugh in the face of uncertainty in general.

At work, I used to do a lot of what you might call "cowboy epistemology". I quite enjoyed drawing useful conclusions from minimal evidence and careful probability-literate analysis. Juggling multiple hypotheses and visualizing probability flows between them is just fun. This seems harmless, or even helpful, but it meant I didn't take gathering redundant data seriously enough. I now think you should systematica...
PSA: Very important policy change at Cryonics Institute
by Scott Garrabrant — 2013-10-03T05:47:47.004Z

In the past, the Cryonics Institute has had a policy that said that they would not accept anyone who is not a member. This has changed. The policy now is that someone who has full legal authority over your body can sign you up after you die. It costs $36,250 to be frozen if you are not signed up, which is more expensive. They also will not do anything until you have been on dry ice for 2 weeks after they have been contacted, so not being a member is more risky.

This is very important news for anyone who is currently cryocrastinating. It means that you can drastically increase your chances of survival without filling out any forms. All you have to do is tell a loved one you want to be frozen upon death, and that you would like them to take responsibility for making sure this happens. This takes literally 30 seconds. Do it now!

This news might also be a reason to not sign up right away, if you think something better (like radical life extension or uploading) will come along in your lifetime. We should discuss this in the comments.

Edit: The general consensus of this discussion is that this is a really bad reason not to sign up for cryonics.
Meetup : Atlanta Lesswrong:  October Meetup (First of Two)
by Nova_Division — 2013-10-03T04:35:46.467Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Atlanta Lesswrong: October Meetup (First of Two)

WHEN:
06 October 2013 06:00:00PM (-0400)

WHERE:
Northgate Manor, 2388 Lawrenceville Hwy. Apt L. Decatur, GA 30033

Come join us for the first meetup for the month of October!

We'll be doing our normal eclectic mix of self-improvement brainstorming, educational mini-presentations, structured discussion, unstructured discussion, and social fun and games times!

Please contact me if you have cat allergies, as our meeting space has cats. Incredibly cute cats.

And check out ATLesswrong's facebook group, if you haven't already: https://www.facebook.com/groups/100137206844878/ where you can connect with Atlanta Lesswrongers and suggest a topics for discussion at this meetup!

Discussion article for the meetup : Atlanta Lesswrong: October Meetup (First of Two)
Systematic Lucky Breaks
by SatvikBeri — 2013-10-03T01:46:26.652Z

Many people can point to significant events that improved their lives in a positive way. They often refer to these as "lucky breaks", and take it for granted that such events are rare. But most of the time "lucky breaks" don't need to be uncommon-you can often reverse engineer the reasons behind them and cause them to happen more frequently. So when a one-off event ends up contributing a lot of value, you should systematically make it part of your life.

Example 1: in June the Less Wrong - Cambridge community held a mega-meetup with several people arriving from out of state. Since several of us had to stay up until 2AM+ in order to meet with people, we decided to have a game night that evening, which I held at my place. The game night was excellent-plenty of people showed up, we all had a lot of fun, and it was a great way to socialize with several people. Since it went so well, I started hosting game nights regularly, eventually converging on one game night every two weeks. This was a phenomenal move in many ways-it let me meet a lot of interesting people, deepen my connections with my friends, quickly integrate with the Less Wrong community, and just in general have a lot of fun, simply by taking one thing that worked well and making it systematic.

Example 2: a while back I was given an assignment to set up a scalable analytic architecture to allow data scientists to iterate faster-a project where I had no idea what to do or how to start. In desperation, I reached out to several people on LinkedIn who had experience with similar projects. Some of them responded, and the advice I got was incredibly valuable, easily shaving months off of my learning curve. But there is no reason for me to only do this when I am completely desperate. Thus I’ve continued to reach out to experts when I have new projects, and this has allowed me to avoid mistakes and solve new problems much more quickly. This has significantly improved my learning speed and made a qualitative difference in how I work. I no longer dismiss potential ideas simply because I have no idea how to implement them-instead, I now talk to experts and figure out roughly how difficult those ideas are, which has allowed me to solve several problems I would have dismissed as unfeasibly difficult before.

Example 3: a few years back some of my friends in the tech industry mentioned that M...
Rationality, competitiveness and akrasia
by cousin_it — 2013-10-02T13:45:31.589Z

Here's an internal dialogue I just had.

Q: How do we test rationality skills?

A: We haven't come up with a comprehensive test yet.

Q: Maybe we can test some part of rationality?

A: Sure. For example, you could test resistance to akrasia by making two contestants do some simple chores every day. The one who fails first, loses.

Q: That seems like a pointless competition. If I'm feeling competitive, why would I ever skip the chores and lose?

A: Whoa, wait. If competitiveness can cure akrasia, that's pretty cool!

Now we just need to figure out how to make people more competitive in the areas they care about...