trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
My mind must be too highly trained
by PhilGoetz — 2015-02-20T21:43:59.036Z

I've played various musical instruments for nearly 40 years now, but some simple things remain beyond my grasp. Most frustrating is sight reading while playing piano. Though I've tried for years, I can't read bass and treble clef at the same time. To sight-read piano music, when you see this:

you need your right hand to read it as C D E F, but your left hand to read it as E F G A. To this day, I can't do it, and I can only learn piano music by learning the treble and bass clef parts separately to the point where I don't rely on the score for more than reminders, then playing them together.

Transposing is also approximately impossible for me. The musical scale is drawn as a linear scale, but it isn't linear. There are missing steps between B and C and between E and F; B# = C and E# = F [1]. So C D E F, transposed into the key of B, becomes B C# D# E [2]. Transposing music that uses notes outside the scale is significantly worse. The only way I can transpose (badly) is to not look at the music and not think about the names of the notes.

I've blamed myself for lacking some ability that would enable me to do these things. But my conversations with (a few) people who can do these things have been peculiar. They don't have any suggestions for my problem, because they never saw them as problems in the first place. When I talked about the inconsistency of trying to use separate notations for the left and right hand, they stared at me uncomprehendingly. The idea that notations should be consistent seemed never to have occurred to them.

So I've decided to blame them instead. The problem is that my mind is too highly trained.

No, seriously. I realize this is probably an unhelpful, self-defeating attitude. But is it correct?

It seems to me that if you're in the habit of working with things on linear scales, that's going to be a hindrance when you try to transpose music. Your brain latches onto the notes marked on the score and automatically constructs an internal representation that is wrong. Likewise, if you're in the habit of looking for consistent interpretations of data and compressing what you observe, your mind will keep trying to reduce the two clef notations down to one.

The system of sharps and flats is efficient in some ways; you just have to remember the order they always occur in, plus one number per scale (the number of sharps and flats), to construct...
Report -- Allocating risk mitigation across time
by owencb — 2015-02-20T16:37:33.199Z

I've just released a Future of Humanity Institute technical report, written as part of the Global Priorities Project.

Abstract:

This article is about priority-setting for work aiming to reduce existential risk. Its chief claim is that all else being equal we should prefer work earlier and prefer to work on risks that might come early. This is because we are uncertain about when we will have to face different risks, because we expect diminishing returns of extra work, and because we expect that more people will work on these risks in the future.

I explore this claim both qualitatively and with explicit models. I consider its implications for two questions: first, “When is it best to do different kinds of work?”; second, “Which risks should we focus on?”.

As a major application, I look at the case of risk from artificial intelligence. The best strategies for reducing this risk depend on when the risk is coming. I argue that we may be underinvesting in scenarios where AI comes soon even though these scenarios are relatively unlikely, because we will not have time later to address them.

You can read the full report here: Allocating risk mitigation across time.
Meetup : Dallas, TX
by DubiousTwizzler — 2015-02-20T05:49:21.071Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Dallas, TX

WHEN:
22 February 2015 01:00:00PM (-0600)

WHERE:
5026 Addison Circle, Addison, TX 75001

We will be meeting up at Pastazios Pizza on Sunday, Feb 22nd at 1 PM. Look for a sign that says "Less Wrong" on it.

Discussion article for the meetup : Dallas, TX
Money threshold Trigger Action Patterns
by Neotenic — 2015-02-20T04:56:55.499Z

In American society, talking about money is a taboo. It is ok to talk about how much money someone else made when they sold their company, or how much money you would like to earn yearly if you got a raise, but in many different ways, talking about money is likely to trigger some embarrassment in the brain, and generate social discomfort. As one random example: no one dares suggest that bills should be paid according to wealth, for instance, instead people quietly assume that fair is each paying ~1/n, which of course completely fails utilitarian standards.

One more interesting thing people don't talk about, but would probably be useful to know, are money trigger action patterns. That would be a trigger action pattern that should trigger whenever you have more money than X, for varying Xs.

A trivial example is when should you stop caring about pennies, or quarters? When should you start taking cabs or Ubers everywhere? These are minor examples, but there are more interesting questions that would benefit from a money trigger action pattern.

An argument can be made for instance that one should invest in health insurance prior to cryonics, cryonics prior to painting a house and recommended charities before expensive soundsystems. But people never put numbers on those things.

When should you buy cryonics and life insurance for it? When you own $1,000? $10,000? $1,000,000? Yes of course those vary from person to person, currency to currency, environment, age group and family size. This is no reason to remain silent about them. Money is the unit of caring, but some people can care about many more things than others in virtue of having more money. Some things are worth caring about if and only if you have that many caring units to spare.

I'd like to see people talking about what one should care about after surpassing specific numeric thresholds of money, and that seems to be an extremely taboo topic. Seems that would be particularly revealing when someone who does not have a certain amount suggests a trigger action pattern and someone who does have that amount realizes that, indeed, they should purchase that thing. Some people would also calibrate better over whether they need more or less money, if they had thought about these thresholds beforehand.

Some suggested items for those who want to try numeric triggers: health insurance, cryonics, 10% donation to favorite cause...
Easy wins aren't news
by PhilGoetz — 2015-02-19T19:38:38.471Z

Recently I talked with a guy from Grant Street Group. They make, among other things, software with which local governments can auction their bonds on the Internet.

By making the auction process more transparent and easier to participate in, they enable local governments which need to sell bonds (to build a high school, for instance), to sell those bonds at, say, 7% interest instead of 8%. (At least, that's what he said.)

They have similar software for auctioning liens on property taxes, which also helps local governments raise more money by bringing more buyers to each auction, and probably helps the buyers reduce their risks by giving them more information.

This is a big deal. I think it's potentially more important than any budget argument that's been on the front pages since the 1960s. Yet I only heard of it by chance.

People would rather argue about reducing the budget by eliminating waste, or cutting subsidies to people who don't deserve it, or changing our ideological priorities. Nobody wants to talk about auction mechanics. But fixing the auction mechanics is the easy win. It's so easy that nobody's interested in it. It doesn't buy us fuzzies or let us signal our affiliations. To an individual activist, it's hardly worth doing.
[LINK] The Wrong Objections to the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
by  — 2015-02-19T18:06:36.000Z

Sean Carroll, physicist and proponent of Everettian Quantum Mechanics, has just posted a new article going over some of the common objections to EQM and why they are false. Of particular interest to us as rationalists:

Now, MWI certainly does predict the existence of a huge number of unobservable worlds. But it doesn’t postulate them. It derives them, from what it does postulate. And the actual postulates of the theory are quite simple indeed:

The world is described by a quantum state, which is an element of a kind of vector space known as Hilbert space.

The quantum state evolves through time in accordance with the Schrödinger equation, with some particular Hamiltonian.

That is, as they say, it. Notice you don’t see anything about worlds in there. The worlds are there whether you like it or not, sitting in Hilbert space, waiting to see whether they become actualized in the course of the evolution. Notice, also, that these postulates are eminently testable — indeed, even falsifiable! And once you make them (and you accept an appropriate “past hypothesis,” just as in statistical mechanics, and are considering a sufficiently richly-interacting system), the worlds happen automatically.

Given that, you can see why the objection is dispiritingly wrong-headed. You don’t hold it against a theory if it makes some predictions that can’t be tested. Every theory does that. You don’t object to general relativity because you can’t be absolutely sure that Einstein’s equation was holding true at some particular event a billion light years away. This distinction between what is postulated (which should be testable) and everything that is derived (which clearly need not be) seems pretty straightforward to me, but is a favorite thing for people to get confused about.

Very reminiscent of the quantum physics sequence here! I find that this distinction between number of entities and number of postulates is something that I need to remind people of all the time.

META: This is my first post; if I have done anything wrong, or could have done something better, please tell me!
Virtue, group and individual prestige
by  — 2015-02-19T14:55:32.405Z

Let's assume now that people respect other people who have or appear to have high levels of virtue. Let's also say that Alice has Level 10 virtue and for this reason she has Level X prestige in other people's eyes, purely based on her individual merits.

Now let's assume that Alice teams up with a lot of other people who have Level 10 virtue and form the League of Extraordinarily Virtuous People. How high a prestige would membership in the League would convey on its members? Higher or lower than X?

I would say, higher, for two reasons. You give Alice a really close look, and you judge her virtue levels must be somewhere around Level 10. However you don't trust your judgement very much and for that reason you discount a bit the prestige points you award to her. However, she was accepted into the League by other people who also appear to be very virtuous. This suggests your estimation was correct, and you can afford to award her more points. Every Well Proven Virtue a League member has increases the chance that the virtues of other members are not fake either or else he or she would not accept to be in the same League with them, and this increases the amount of prestige points you award to them. Second, few people know Alice up close and personally. The bigger the distance, the less they know about her, her personal fame radiates only so far. But the combined fame of the League radiates much farther. Thus more people notice their virtuousness and award prestige points to them.

In other words, if virtuous people want to maximize the prestige points they have, it is a good idea for them to form famous groups with strict entry requirements.

And suddenly Yale class rings make sense now. They get more prestige for being a member of a group who is famous for having whatever virtues it takes to graduate from Yale, than the prestige they could get for simply having those virtues.

The flip side of it, if you want to motivate people to be more virtuous, and if you think prestige assigned to virtue is a good way to do that, encourage them to form famous groups with strict entry requirements.

One funny thing is that the stricter you make the entry requirements (base minimum level of virtue), the more prestige the group will _automatically_ get. You just design the entry test, basically the cost paid, but you don't need to design the reward, it is automatically ...
Vote for MIRI to be donated a share of reddit's advertising revenue
by  — 2015-02-19T10:07:30.515Z

http://www.reddit.com/donate?organization=582565917

"Today we are announcing that we will donate 10% of our advertising revenue receipts in 2014 to non-profits chosen by the reddit community. Whether it’s a large ad campaign or a $5 sponsored headline on reddit, we intend for all ad revenue this year to benefit not only reddit as a platform but also to support the goals and causes of the entire community."
Czech's first Meetup in Prague report
by kotrfa — 2015-02-19T08:52:18.938Z

Hello,

I'm happy to inform Less Wrong community about new meet up in Czech Republic, Prague. Despite the fact that nobody came at meet up I'd organized 2 months ago (mainly because it was organized only two weeks ahead), yesterday we met in 5 people. Plus, some other people (about next 3) just couldn't make it yesterday, but are interested in future meet ups.

All of us are young men in 21-25, studying or working in mathematics (mainly data science), informatics or AI and one of us is studying international affairs.

Just 2 of us have some stronger background with Less Wrong (we have read HPMOR and at least core sequences), the rest is interested in these and are willing to catch up (more or less) and came based on our recommendation or by getting at the LW by luck.

We agreed we'd like to meet regularly to share our opinions, lifehacking experiences, commenting our lives etc. and we are going to meet in next 14 days. In addition, we agreed to plan longer-term meet up for those who don't visit LW too often and hence have a chance to notice it.

Currently, the most challenging task I see so far is to find an optimal shape, form, of the group and formulate it's motives and goals. It ranges from just being friends and chat from time to time to highly organized group with fixed time schedule, active work and close relationships. Of course, I do realize how hard it is to hold the group together and how we should not rely only on initial enthusiasm.

Yesterday, we discussed for about 3 hours about various topics like lifehacking, our studies, tips, most-actual-questions, our lifes... The most surprising thing I've found was how diverse we are in different techniques which help to our productivity - one of us needs stress, I need exact time schedule, other one is more effective when taking things easy, one testing nootropics, other one meditation, I eat my frog at the morning, other one after some other pleasant things et etcetera. Another interesting thing was how our lives have been entangled together - we know same people or friends, we have visited same courses... Not so surprising when living in city just with million or so people, but still interesting.

Less Wrong website (community) was what brings as together and I feel obligated to inform the community about it's impact and happiness it nourishes. Also, any recommendations and help is welcome (I try ...
[Link] YC President Sam Altman: The Software Revolution
by Antisuji — 2015-02-19T05:13:53.705Z

Writing about technological revolutions, Y Combinator president Sam Altman warns about the dangers of AI and bioengineering (discussion on Hacker News):

Two of the biggest risks I see emerging from the software revolution—AI and synthetic biology—may put tremendous capability to cause harm in the hands of small groups, or even individuals.

I think the best strategy is to try to legislate sensible safeguards but work very hard to make sure the edge we get from technology on the good side is stronger than the edge that bad actors get. If we can synthesize new diseases, maybe we can synthesize vaccines. If we can make a bad AI, maybe we can make a good AI that stops the bad one.

The current strategy is badly misguided. It’s not going to be like the atomic bomb this time around, and the sooner we stop pretending otherwise, the better off we’ll be. The fact that we don’t have serious efforts underway to combat threats from synthetic biology and AI development is astonishing.

On the one hand, it's good to see more mainstream(ish) attention to AI safety. On the other hand, he focuses on the mundane (though still potentially devastating!) risks of job destruction and concentration of power, and his hopeful "best strategy" seems... inadequate.
Sidekick Matchmaking
by diegocaleiro — 2015-02-19T00:13:30.498Z

Thanks linkhyrule5 for suggesting this.

Post your request for Sidekicks or your desire to be a sidekick in the comment section below.

Send a personal message to your potential match to start communicating instead of replying in the thread, to save space and avoid biases, besides privacy.

[edit] Mathias Zamman suggests some questions:

Questions for both Heroes and Sidekicks (and Dragons, etc.)

Post a short description of yourself: personality, skills, general goals.

Where do you live?

How do you see the contact between the two of you going?

What you require in your counterpart: This can be a bit vague but it might be too hard to verbalize for some people

Questions for Heroes:

What is your goal?

Why are you a Hero?

Why do you require a Sidekick?

What specific tasks would a Sidekick perform for you?

What qualities would you not want in a Sidekick?

Questions for Sidekicks:

What sort of goals are you looking for?

Why are you Sidekick material?

Why do you require a Hero?

What sort of tasks could you do for a Hero?

What qualities don't you want in a Hero?
Innate Mathematical Ability
by JonahS — 2015-02-18T11:11:03.708Z

In my present sequence of posts, I'm writing about the nature of mathematical ability. My main reason for doing so is to provide information that can help improve mathematical ability.

Along the way, I'm going to discuss how people can't improve their mathematical ability. This may seem antithetical to my goal. Focus on innate ability can lead to a sort of self-fulfilling prophesy, where people think that their abilities are fixed and can't be improved, which results in them not improving their abilities because they think that doing so is pointless.

Carol Dweck has become well known for her growth mindset / fixed mindset framework. She writes:

"In a fixed mindset students believe their basic abilities, their intelligence, their talents, are just fixed traits. They have a certain amount and that's that, and then their goal becomes to look smart all the time and never look dumb. In a growth mindset, students understand that their talents and abilities can be developed through effort, good teaching and persistence. They don't necessarily think everyone's the same or anyone can be Einstein, but they believe everyone can get smarter if they work at it." [...] This is important because individuals with a "growth" theory are more likely to continue working hard despite setbacks...

As I'll describe in my next post, I'm broadly sympathetic with Dweck's perspective. But it's not an either-or situation. Some abilities are innate and can't be developed, and other abilities can be.

One could argue that this idea is too nuanced for most people to appreciate, so that it's better to just not talk about innate ability. This seems to me paternalistic and patronizing. People need to know which abilities are fixed and which can be developed, so that they can focus on developing abilities that can in fact be developed rather than wasting time and effort on developing those that can't be.

Working to improve abilities that are fixed is unproductive

When I was in elementary school, I would often fall short of answering all questions correctly on timed arithmetic tests. Multiple teachers told me that I needed to work on making fewer "careless mistakes." I was puzzled by the situation – I certainly didn't feel as though I was being careless. In hindsight, I see that my teachers were mostly misguided on this point. I imagine that their thinkin...
Meetup : MelbLW Social Meetup
by Maelin — 2015-02-18T10:46:01.131Z

Discussion article for the meetup : MelbLW Social Meetup

WHEN:
20 February 2015 06:30:00PM (+1100)

WHERE:
328 Little Lonsdale St, Melbourne, Australia

February's LessWrong Melbourne social meetup is on this Friday night at Alchemist's Refuge.

Our social meetups are relaxed, informal events where we chat and often play games. The start and finish times are very loose - people will be coming and going throughout the night, so don't worry if you are coming later or have to leave early.

(For those who weren't aware, our social meetups are always on the third Friday of each month)

Where? Alchemist's Refuge, 328 Little Lonsdale St, Melbourne

When? From 6:30pm until late, Friday February 20th

Contact? If you have any questions, just text or call Richard on 0421231789

Dinner? Alchemist's Refuge stocks drinks but does not not serve food beyond packs of chips, however there are a number of take-away places nearby (including some that deliver - the bar staff can give recommendations). We have a tradition of going to Stalactites (Greek restaurant) for a souvlaki after the meetup if you are able to wait!

Games? The Refuge has a selection of games available to borrow and you are also welcome to bring any board games, card games, etc that you'd like to play. You should be able to organise a group to play pretty easily!

Hope to see you there!

Discussion article for the meetup : MelbLW Social Meetup
Meetup : Seattle Sequences group: Mysterious Answers 2
by SeekingEternity — 2015-02-18T07:42:00.756Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Seattle Sequences group: Mysterious Answers 2

WHEN:
23 February 2015 06:30:00PM (-0800)

WHERE:
185 Stevens Way,Seattle, Washington 98195

Location is the UW CSE building, room 503.
Facebook event: https://www.facebook.com/events/1530831413847587/

This is a weekly meetup to discuss and work through the Sequences while getting to know other aspiring rationalists in the Seattle area. Each week's reading list is posted in the relevant Facebook event. As the name suggests, this meetup will go over the second part of the "Mysterious Answers to Mysterious Questions" sequence. We previously covered the "Map and territory" sequence. All are welcome to join, though, even if they've read all of the sequences already or haven't yet caught up to us.

There are often snacks at the meetup, which typically runs until around 9. After that, we go get dinner on the Ave.

Discussion article for the meetup : Seattle Sequences group: Mysterious Answers 2
Orthogonality: action counterfactuals
by Stuart_Armstrong — 2015-02-17T21:04:47.000Z

It seems that some of the problems with orthogonality go away if you use the AI's actions to define the counterfactuals.

In the traditional model "Press" meant a button is pressed that compels the AI to change utility u→v, and it gets a reward E(u|u↛v)−E(v|u→v). Problem was, this could cause the AI to compel people to press the button.

Instead I propose that u→v is an action that the AI can choose to take, and that "Press" allows the AI to take that action. Then it would get rewarded with maxaE(u|a≠u→v)−E(v|u→v), calculated by the AI according to counterfactuals on its own actions (somehow; details left to the student to fill in).

We could add a small (or infinitesimal) ϵ on top of that so that the change u→v is the decision the AI reaches. This makes it likely to encourage "Press", but only as a tie breaker decision.

Why is this immune to the usual attempts by the AI to cause (or deny) "Press"? Simply because if the AI decided not to u→v, then it only loses an ϵ. Thus causing "Press" to happen (which opens the option u→v) will only gain it an ϵ at max.