trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Interesting rationalist exercise about French election
by kilobug — 2012-04-16T15:34:53.811Z

The newspaper "Le Monde" made an interesting exercise for rationalists in the context of the French election.

They first made a classical "which is your best candidate" poll, in which they ask multiple choice questions about various topics (for each question, you must select one answer, and how important the issue is for you), and at the end, they select the candidate that (according to them) is closest to your answers. Nothing new in that.

But then, they made a much more interesting (at least from a rationality training point of view) exercise : they asked the same questions, but not asking "what is your opinion on the topic ?" and "how is this question important for you ?" but they asked "what do you think the majority of our readers answered ?" and "how do they think they rated the importance of this issue ?". And then they give you a score from 0 to 1000 on how good your "predictions" were.

It's in French, so it'll be hard for most of you to try it, but if you want it is available online here.

I found this kind of exercise (trying to guess what other people will have answered) to be interesting from a LW point of view, because it somehow makes your beliefs (about the opinions, priority and mentalities of French people) pay rent.

So I wanted to share it with the LW community, and ask if you know about similar exercises elsewhere, that gives you a way to check how accurate your belief network is in complicated issues, if you find them interesting too, and how they could be improved.

As an idea of improvement, I would like adding a confidence rating to each question, the more confident you feel in your answer, the more points you get if you get it right, but the more you lose if you get it wrong.
Server Sky: lots of very thin computer satellites
by lsparrish — 2012-04-16T11:05:22.766Z

The following is intended as 1) request for specific criticisms regarding the value of time investment on this project, and 2) pending favorable answer to this, a request for further involvement from qualified individuals. It is not intended as a random piece of interesting pop-sci, despite the subject matter, but as a volunteer opportunity.

Server Sky is a an engineering proposal to place thousands (eventually millions) of micron-thin satellites into medium orbit around the earth in the near term. It is being put forth by Keith Lofstrom, the inventor of the Launch Loop.

Abstract from the 2009 paper:

It is easier to move bits than atoms or energy. Server­-sats are ultralight disks of silicon that convert sunlight into computation and communications. Powered by a large solar cell, propelled and steered by light pressure, networked and located by microwaves, and cooled by black­-body radiation. Arrays of thousands of server­-sats form highly redundant computation and database servers, as well as phased array antennas to reach thousands of transceivers on the ground.
First generation server­-sats are 20 centimeters across ( about 8 inches ), 0.1 millimeters (100 microns) thick, and weigh 7 grams. They can be mass produced with off­-the­-shelf semiconductor technologies. Gallium arsenide radio chips provide intra­-array, inter­-array, and ground communication, as well as precise location information. Server­-sats are launched stacked by the thousands in solid cylinders, shrouded and vibration-­isolated inside a traditional satellite bus.

Links:

Papers and Presentations

Slide Show

Wiki Main Page

Help Wanted

Mailing List

Some mildly negative evidence to start with: I have already had a satellite scientist tell me that this seems unlikely to work. Avoiding space debris and Kessler Syndrome, radio communications difficulties (especially uplink), and the need for precise synchronization are the obstacles he stressed as significant. He did not seem to have studied the proposal closely, but this at least tells us to be careful where to set our priors.

On the other hand, it appears Keith has given these problems a lot of thought already, and solutions can probably be worked out. The thinsats would have optical thrusters (small solar sails) and would thus be able to move themselves and each other around; defective ones could be ...
Intelligence Explosion vs. Co-operative Explosion
by Kaj_Sotala — 2012-04-16T11:01:00.544Z

Abstract: In the FOOM debate, Eliezer emphasizes 'optimization power', something like intelligence, as the main thing that makes both evolution and humans so powerful. A different choice of abstractions says that the main thing that's been giving various organisms - from single-celled creatures to wasps to humans - an advantage is the capability to form superorganisms, thus reaping the gains of specialization and shifting evolutionary selection pressure to the level of the superorganism. There seem to be several ways by which a technological singularity could involve the creation of new kinds of superorganisms, which would then reap benefits above and beyond those that individual humans can achieve, and which would quite likely have quite different values. This strongly suggests that even if one is not worried about the intelligence explosion (because of e.g. finding a hard takeoff improbable), one should still be worried about the co-operative explosion.

After watching Jonathan Haidt's excellent new TEDTalk yesterday, I bought his latest book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. At one point, Haidt has a discussion of evolutionary superorganisms - cases where previously separate organisms have joined together into a single superorganism, shifting evolution's selection pressure to operate on the level of the superorganism and avoiding the usual pitfalls that block group selection (excerpts below). With an increased ability for the previously-separate organisms to co-operate, these new superorganisms can often out-compete simpler organisms.

Suppose you entered a boat race. One hundred rowers, each in a separate rowboat, set out on a ten-mile race along a wide and slow-moving river. The first to cross the finish line will win $10,000. Halfway into the race, you’re in the lead. But then, from out of nowhere, you’re passed by a boat with two rowers, each pulling just one oar. No fair! Two rowers joined together into one boat! And then, stranger still, you watch as that rowboat is overtaken by a train of three such rowboats, all tied together to form a single long boat. The rowers are identical septuplets. Six of them row in perfect synchrony while the seventh is the coxswain, steering the boat and calling out the beat for the rowers. But those cheaters are deprived of victory just before they cross the finish lin

...
Knowledge value = knowledge quality × domain importance
by John_Maxwell — 2012-04-16T08:40:57.158Z

Months ago, my roommate and I were discussing someone who had tried to replicate Seth Roberts' butter mind self-experiment. My roommate seemed to be making almost no inference from the person's self-reports, because they weren't part of a scientific study.

But knowledge does not come in two grades, "scientific" and "useless". Anecdotes do count as evidence, they are just weak evidence. And well designed scientific studies constitute stronger evidence then poorly designed studies. There's a continuum for knowledge quality.

Knowing that humans are biased should make us take their stories and ad hoc inferences less seriously, but not discard them altogether.

There exists some domains where most of our knowledge is fairly low-quality. But that doesn't mean they're not worth study, if the value of information in the domain is high.

For example, a friend of mine read a bunch of books on negotiation and says this is the best one. Flipping through my copy, it looks like the author is mostly just enumerating his own thoughts, stories, and theories. So one might be tempted to discard the book entirely because it isn't very scientific.

But that would be a mistake. If a smart person thinks about something for a while and comes to a conclusion, that's decent-quality evidence that the conclusion is correct. (If you disagree with me on this point, why do you think about things?)

And the value of information in the domain of negotiation can be very high: If you're a professional, being able to negotiate your salary better can net you hundreds of thousands over the course of a career. (Anchoring means your salary next year will probably just be an incremental raise from your salary last year, so starting salary is very important.)

Similarly, this self-help book is about as dopey and unscientific as they come. But doing one of the exercises from it years ago destroyed a large insecurity of mine that I was only peripherally aware of. So I probably got more out of it in instrumental terms than I would've gotten out of a chemistry textbook.

In general, self-improvement seems like a domain of really high importance that's unfortunately flooded with low-quality knowledge. If you invest two hours implementing some self-improvement scheme and find yourself operating 10% more effectively, you'll double your investment in just a week, assuming a 40 hour work week. (ALERT...
Meetup : Tel Aviv, Israel
by Anatoly_Vorobey — 2012-04-16T08:37:09.827Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Tel Aviv, Israel

WHEN: 21 April 2012 07:00:00PM (+0300)

WHERE: Cafe Aroma, London Ministore, Sderot Sha'ul HaMelech, Tel Aviv, Israel

Let's have a LW meetup in Tel Aviv. There are currently no ongoing meetings here - if this one goes well, we can repeat it.

I'll be sitting at the Aroma cafe on the corner of Shaul HaMelech and Ibn Gvirol. I commit to being there this Saturday Apr 21 during 19:00-21:00 regardless of who else is coming. There'll be a LW sign on the table.

We'll do introductions, find common topics to talk about, and maybe play a rationality game. If you've never done a LW meetup, don't let that hinder you (I haven't either).

Any questions or issues are welcome here in comments, or send me a PM. If you plan to come, I'd appreciate a heads-up so I have some idea how many people plan to be there, but don't feel obliged to do that - feel free to just show up without telling anyone.

Looking forward to meeting you!

Discussion article for the meetup : Tel Aviv, Israel
[SEQ RERUN] Where Physics Meets Experience
by MinibearRex — 2012-04-16T04:04:16.542Z

Today's post, Where Physics Meets Experience was originally published on 25 April 2008. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):

Meet the Ebborians, who reproduce by fission. The Ebborian brain is like a thick sheet of paper that splits down its thickness. They frequently experience dividing into two minds, and can talk to their other selves. It seems that their unified theory of physics is almost finished, and can answer every question, when one Ebborian asks: When exactly does one Ebborian become two people?

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 Which Basis Is More Fundamental?, 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.
Be Happier
by Klevador — 2012-04-16T01:51:46.838Z

This started as an assignment to find out about the science of ‘buying happiness’ (using money to become happier) — hence the emphasis on money-and-happiness. I learned a great deal more than how to buy happiness, however, and the project became somewhat more generalized. It is not meant to be comprehensive, but perhaps it makes for a useful supplement to Luke’s How to be Happy. This post consists mostly of quoted material.

In A Nutshell

Money and Happiness

Spend on others, especially people you are close to. Positive feedback loop: Prosocial spending makes you happier, and happiness makes you more likely to spend prosocially.
Don’t be stingy. It's bad for your health.
Don’t think too much about money. It will impair your savoring ability. It's also bad for your family life.
Be time-aware, but don’t think of time in terms of money.
Being richer will not necessarily make you happier.
Do not live in wealthy enclaves.
Avoid conspicuous consumption.

Work Satisfaction

Coping with Stress: React pragmatically rather than emotionally.
Go for ‘approach’ goals instead of ‘avoid’ goals.
Autonomy: Make a point of prefering autonomous goals rather than heteronomous goals (goals imposed by others).
Autonomy: Make sure you have spare discretionary time — even at financial cost.
Be passionate, but don’t obsess.
Do work that you enjoy doing. Flow.
Set goals that are reasonably challenging and reasonably achievable.

Materialism and Purchasing

Prefer experiential purchases; avoid materialistic goals.
Keep your goals intrinsic.
Don’t do ‘comparison shopping.’ And don’t place much stock in the happiness potential of any one positive change.
Follow the herd. “The best way to predict how much we will enjoy an experience is to see how much someone else enjoyed it.”

Interpersonal

Socialize with close others.
Associate with happy people.
Give the people around you opportunities to be generous. Ask them for favors.
Be actively kind (and occasionaly reminisce about your recent acts of kindness).

Stretching Happiness (fighting hedonic adaptation)

Go for smaller, more frequent successes rather than larger ones.
Go for variety and surprise. Don’t keep doing the same thing.
Savor anticipation. Delay consumption. Actively anticipate good experiences.
Divide positive experiences into smaller pleasures, if possible.
Corollary: Conclude negative experiences as soon as possible.
Make a point of avoiding experie

...
Meetup : São Paulo Meet Up 2
by Gust — 2012-04-16T01:36:29.860Z

Discussion article for the meetup : São Paulo Meet Up 2

WHEN:
23 April 2012 07:30:00PM (-0300)

WHERE:
1034 Alameda Santos, São Paulo, Brasil

Brazilians, Unite!

Our last meeting was great. Let's do that again! I hope everybody who couldn't go to the last one show up this time.

Meeting point: Starbucks at Alameda Santos with Alameda Campinas. Later we may go somewhere and eat something.

I'll be there at 19:30 with a copy of "Good and Real" on the table.

Cya!

Discussion article for the meetup : São Paulo Meet Up 2
Meetup : Cambridge, MA Third Sunday Meetup
by chronophasiac — 2012-04-15T18:20:58.960Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Cambridge, MA Third Sunday Meetup

WHEN:
20 May 2012 02:20:00PM (-0400)

WHERE:
25 Ames St, Cambridge MA

Cambridge/Boston-area Less Wrong meetups on the first and third Sunday of every month, 2pm at the MIT Landau Building [25 Ames St, Bldg 66], room 148. Room number may change, subject to availability.

Discussion article for the meetup : Cambridge, MA Third Sunday Meetup
Meetup : Cambridge, MA  First Sunday Meetup
by chronophasiac — 2012-04-15T18:19:03.137Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Cambridge, MA First Sunday Meetup

WHEN:
06 May 2012 02:00:00PM (-0400)

WHERE:
25 Ames St, Cambridge MA

Cambridge/Boston-area Less Wrong meetups on the first and third Sunday of every month, 2pm at the MIT Landau Building [25 Ames St, Bldg 66], room 148. Room number may change, subject to availability.

Discussion article for the meetup : Cambridge, MA First Sunday Meetup
More intuitive programming languages
by A4FB53AC — 2012-04-15T11:35:49.516Z

I'm not a programmer. I wish I were. I've tried to learn it several times, different languages, but never went very far. The most complex piece of software I ever wrote was a bulky, inefficient game of life.

Recently I've been exposed to the idea of a visual programming language named subtext. The concept seemed interesting, and the potential great. In short, the assumptions and principles sustaining this language seem more natural and more powerful than those behind writing lines of codes. For instance, a program written as lines of codes is uni-dimensional, and even the best of us may find it difficult to sort that out, model the flow of instructions in your mind, how distant parts of the code interact together, etc. Here it's already more apparent because of the two-dimensional structure of the code.

I don't know whether this particular project will bear fruit. But it seems to me many more people could become more interested in programming, and at least advance further before giving up, if programming languages were easier to learn and use for people who don't necessarily have the necessary mindset to be a programmer in the current paradigm.

It could even benefit people who're already good at it. Any programmer may have a threshold above which the complexity of the code goes beyond their ability to manipulate or understand. I think it should be possible to push that threshold farther with such languages/frameworks, enabling the writing of more complex, yet functional pieces of software.

Do you know anything about similar projects? Also, what could be done to help turn such a project into a workable programming language? Do you see obvious flaws in such an approach? If so, what could be done to repair these, or at least salvage part of this concept?
Meetup : Budapest Meetup
by  — 2012-04-15T11:21:08.448Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Budapest Meetup

WHEN:
21 April 2012 05:30:00PM (+0100)

WHERE:
1061 Budapest, Andrássy út 2.

PLEASE NOTE the changed venue: Costa Coffee, Andrássy út 2. link.

Please come and bring friends. If you have questions, contact katyusha.

BudLW mailing list: link.

Discussion article for the meetup : Budapest Meetup
'Thinking, Fast and Slow' Chapter Summaries / Notes [link]
by Lightwave — 2012-04-15T09:14:14.280Z

I recently read Kahneman's 'Thinking Fast and Slow' (actually listened to the audiobook) and I wanted to find a summary of the experiments he describes and I stumbled upon this: http://sivers.org/book/ThinkingFastAndSlow. It has a summary of the interesting/important points of each chapter. Most of the statements seem to be direct quotes from the book, so if you have it in an electronic format (it can easily be obtained from uh, various sources) you can search for those quotes and find the context.

Bonus: Notes from Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational and also many other books.
[SEQ RERUN] Which Basis Is More Fundamental?
by MinibearRex — 2012-04-15T06:59:21.557Z

Today's post, Which Basis Is More Fundamental? was originally published on 24 April 2008. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):

The position basis can be computed locally in the configuration space; the momentum basis is not local. Why care about locality? Because it is a very deep principle; reality itself seems to favor it in some way.

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 The So-Called Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, 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.
Suggestions needed: good articles for a meetup discussion
by AShepard — 2012-04-14T22:31:56.604Z

The Chicago LW meetup group is looking to add a bit more structure to our discussions, which have been rather freeform to this point. What are some good articles that we could read in advance and then discuss at the meetup?

Some criteria that I think a good article would have:

LW-related topic

Relatively brief, so we will actually read it beforehand (a typical sequence post is probably a good target length)

Able to support/spark enough good discussion to be a centerpiece of a meetup

Others?

We haven't really done this before, so any suggestions or advice based on experiences at other meetups would be especially helpful (both specific articles that have worked well before, as well as best practices for having the best discussions).
Should "latest insights" appear in the front page blurb?
by Mark_Eichenlaub — 2012-04-14T21:58:42.962Z

The front page states

We use the latest insights from cognitive science, social psychology,probability theory, and decision theory to improve our understanding of how the world works and what we can do to achieve our goals.

The use of "latest" is a minor turn-off for me. It reminds me of blogs' and mass-media news' uncritical approach to recent papers in health and psychology. It makes me think that LessWrong will be about grabbing a paper, summarizing its result, and explaining how to apply it in daily life.

LessWrong is cognizant of the problems in scientific publishing. We know that any individual paper is likely to be wrong - more so if the conclusions are highly unexpected. (The more sensational the headline, the less likely it is to be true).

LessWrong usually focuses on higher-level summaries when discussing scientific findings, especially in psychology. A typical top-level science post has lots of references, many to review articles and meta-analyses. That's not the impression I get from the front page, though, so I think it we could communicate the community's goals better by dropping the word "latest".

This point is similar to one made by Gabriel in this comment.
Should the front page include the phrase "latest insights"?
by Mark_Eichenlaub — 2012-04-14T21:40:36.225Z

The front page claims

<blockquote>We use the latest insights from cognitive science, social psychology,probability theory, and decision theory to improve our understanding of how the world works and what we can do to achieve our goals.</blockquote>

I find the use of the phrase "latest insights" to be a minor turn-off. It reminds me of [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/sep/24/1](crappy news stories) over-hyping and misrepresenting individual papers in diet, health, psychology, and similar fields where individual papers are likely to be wrong, and more likely to be wrong the more remarkable their findings.

LessWrong is cognizant of the problems with scientific publishing, and we take a different approach towards discussing science than most blogs and mass media outlets do. We focus on higher-level summaries of the scientific knowledge in a field when discussing research, especially in psychology. I think we could convey the community's goals better by dropping the word "latest".

This point seems to line up with [http://lesswrong.com/lw/atm/cult_impressions_of_less_wrongsi/6134](this comment) by Gabriel, but there was no further discussion there.