trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Finance - accessibility (asking for textbook recommendations)
by max he — 2020-12-05T21:14:54.537Z

Finance is obfuscated, not made accessible, for it is why professionals are paid. Barriers of entry are intentional

Anonymous finance professional

Context - While debating the legitimacy and usefulness of industry-knowledge barriers of entry is arguably interesting, I pursue a rather egotistical goal: learning finance. I believe that understanding finance & economy is part of the foundation of one's sense of agency. But the failed attempts, efforts, time, and energy yielded nothing, but some bitterness.

Form - I agree with this community that textbooks stood the test of time and represent the best form of source for learning. MOOCs and other nascent modern teaching mediums are still work-in-progress, but I am not dogmatic, rather, grateful for having unimpaired access to all mediums and willing to use them.

Opinionated preference - Given my background (mathematics & statistics and no finance/economy), I prefer concise expositions of principles & mechanisms of the system, stripping away, at least at first, any interpretations, be it functional or otherwise. Definitions of concepts, presentation of the environment (people's interests and goals), challenges, and solutions as well as emerging properties would be ideal. Lists and examples would be kept to a minimum, I find them cluttering the discourse.

Fantasized book incipit - Trading, now and later, present and future goods and services creates the opportunity for the specialization of people. Finance is the field and industry concerned with solving the trading implementation. While finance is wildly broad operationally, the problem is concise.

Question - What are the best textbook(s) to learn finance, all of it? It should not take very long, I believe...
AI Winter Is Coming - How to profit from it?
by  — 2020-12-05T20:23:51.309Z

Note: This isn't the place to debate/convince others of your position on AI winter. There are plenty of threads on Lesswrong for that already.
There are already a few posts on how to profit from rapid AI progress in the near future. I figured it would be worthwhile to also discuss the opposite scenario - a third AI winter, if nothing else to hedge against it.

I don't expect many people to agree with my pessimistic view on future AI progress, especially considering the recent hype around GPT-3 and AlphaFold. But if you're predicting another AI winter, it's precisely the best time to take a bet, namely when expectations are high.

However, I find it quite difficult to operationalize such a position. Disentangling deep learning from the rest of tech is hard. It doesn't make sense to short Nvidia stock since their main business is still gaming hardware. Tesla may well succeed in the electric cars/solar energy industries even without full self-driving. Alphabet, Microsoft and Facebook all could go on just fine if deep learning turns out to be a mirage.

That's why I've come here for advice. I have intentionally left out any precise definition of 'AI winter' because I don't want to rule out any potential ideas that only fit some scenarios. Any input would be greatly appreciated.
How can I restore my previous account?
by Stirling_Westrup2 — 2020-12-05T19:31:34.908Z

I'm now logged in, for the first time since the new LessWrong has been operating. Ages ago my old account (Stirling_Westrup) simply stopped working, and I couldn't log in to post a message saying there was a problem. I ended up making a second account, but never got any responses to my complaints that my main account was broken. On a whim I tried to log in now, and was told it was a legacy account. So, here I am. But is there any way to get back my original account Stirling_Westrup?
Anti-EMH Evidence (and a plea for help)
by Wei Dai — 2020-12-05T18:29:31.772Z

The debate over EMH should perhaps be framed as "What skill level and assets under management do I need to make it worthwhile to play the markets instead of doing passive investing?" This is a list of anti-EMH evidence (that I personally came across in my relatively short exploration into the public markets), in the sense that they've updated me towards thinking that the levels are not as high as I had thought. (Compare with "Modern Edges are Completely Ridiculous" section in The EMH Aten't Dead.)

Negative extrinsic value for HYLN warrants

Warrants are similar to call options, in that you get the right to purchase shares of common stock at a set price, which is $11.5 for HYLN warrants. However HYLN commons have been trading at $15-$16 above HYLN warrants. There are some complications including that HYLN warrants are not exercisable right now and won't be for a few days to weeks until SEC approves some filings, but it's still hard to explain the negative extrinsic value assuming EMH. (Many SPAC stocks exhibit this, not just HYLN.)

(This was written some days ago and the warrants have since become exercisable, and the price gap has closed.)

Equivalent asset arbitrage

Two securities (symbols to come later as this is still being actively traded) are supposed to give the same dividend stream. The company's official website states that they are meant to be economically equivalent. Until recently these two symbols have been priced very close to each other, but one asset started trading at a premium to the other in the last few weeks, sometimes >10%, with the delta swinging back and forth over this time period creating repeated arbitrage opportunities.

AHT commons versus preferred

There was an exchange offer that expired on Nov 20, where 1 preferred share of AHT could be exchanged for 5.58 shares of AHT common stock, but AHT commons have been trading at way above 1/5.58 the price of AHT preferred and was as high as 1/2 in the last couple of days before expiration (technically Nov 17 and 18, because if you bought on Nov 19 or 20, the shares wouldn't settle in time to participate in the exchange). The risk of the exchange offer being canceled or changed doesn't seem nearly high enough to explain this, and in fact the exchange did go through at the 1:5.58 ratio.

Senseless HTZ spike on DIP news

I previously mentioned this on Open Thread. To quote a commenter (on a pai...
Supervised learning in the brain, part 4: compression / filtering
by Steven Byrnes — 2020-12-05T17:06:07.778Z

For those who haven't been following along, for reasons described

here

I've been trying to get a big-picture understanding of brain modules outside what I call the “neocortex subsystem”. So then I was reading about the cerebellum and amygdala. Both the cerebellum and amygdala run supervised learning algorithms (

ref

,

ref

), although the amygdala seems to do other things too. So, here I am, writing yet another blog post about why it might be useful for a brain to have self-contained modules that do supervised learning, at a big-picture level.

So far I've blogged about three reasons that a brain benefits from supervised learning:

First, as I discussed

here

, the neocortex tries to predict its upcoming inputs—what Yann LeCun calls “self-supervised learning”. This helps us understand the world (i.e., build good latent representations), and that predictive model then gets leveraged for planning, decision-making, etc., using reinforcement learning.
Second, as I discussed

here

, there are times when you have a "ground truth" supervisory signal that arrives too late—e.g., a signal that you just got hit in the face and therefore should have flinched, or a signal that you're suddenly in grave danger and therefore should have been more nervous and alert before you got yourself into this bad situation. In cases like this, you can use a supervised learning system to synthesize a predictor signal that precedes the corresponding supervisory signal. Then in that

same blog post

, I drew a bunch of diagrams speculating on how such a system could be used to improve motor control (by putting a cerebellum circuit between the neocortex and the muscles), and even to help you think better and faster (by putting a cerebellum circuit in the middle of a neocortex-to-neocortex connection). And indeed, the cerebellum is involved in both motor control

and language skills etc

.
Third, as I discussed

here

, if you look at the patterns of neuron activity in the neocortex when someone is expecting that they’re just about to taste salt (for example), then I claim those same patterns of neuron activity happen (albeit more weakly) when they’re imagining tasting salt, remembering tasting salt, watching someone else taste salt, etc. So you can train a supervised learning system with the ground-truth Taste-Of-Salt signal, and you’ll incidentally be able to reuse that same trained model to detect whether or n

...
Notes on Care
by David Gross — 2020-12-05T16:33:18.013Z

This post examines the virtue of care. It is meant mostly as an exploration of what others have learned about this virtue, rather than as me expressing my own opinions about it, though I’ve been selective about what I found interesting or credible, according to my own inclinations. I wrote this not as an expert on the topic, but as someone who wants to learn more about it. I hope it will be helpful to people who want to know more about this virtue and how to nurture it.

What do I mean by care?

Care is another one of those words that has a wide range of common uses:

You can care about something (be curious or concerned about it) or care for something (be personally invested in it or engaged in promoting its well-being).
You can care for things (for example, doing a job carefully or with care, or being the caretaker for a building) as well as e.g. people, but these have different connotations.
Care can be an affectionate sentiment (“I really care for you, Jane”), or assistive actions (“I’m caring for Jane as she recovers from the accident”).
Care can sometimes be a synonym for caution (be careful, take care).
“Care ethics” grew out of a feminist critique of traditional justice-oriented ethics schemes (see appendix below).

The sense of care that I want to explore in this post is the sort of care that is directed toward people (or animals-as-pets, etc., but not mere things or animals-as-livestock) and that takes the form of actions that are meant to promote their well-being. The other meanings of care I’ve either already covered in my posts on compassion and prudence, or may get to later if I get around to writing up virtues like concern, conscientiousness, affection, and kindness.

When I decided to limit the definition of care I was using in this way, I worried at first that I had defined it so narrowly that it was no longer a “virtue” — a habit characteristic of a flourishing human being — and more of a “skill.” I think what I have in mind as a virtue is something like “caring,” as in “Of course Pat pulled the car over and got out to make sure everyone was okay. Pat’s such a caring person.” To have the virtue of caring is to habitually have the inclination to give care to those who need it, the discernment to know when and what care is called for, and the skill to offer care competently.

There’s a lot of overlap between that and compassion as I described it. The way I i...
[RXN#7] Russian x-risks newsletter fall 2020
by avturchin — 2020-12-05T16:28:51.421Z

Coronavirus

While the covid continues to make record numbers in Russia, many Russian transhumanists participated in the clinical trial or Russian Sputnik-5 vaccine or of the Chinese vaccine. They developed antibodies, didn’t fail ill and have mild adverse effects. Unfortunately, the production is slow and it still not available for masses. More generally, there were reports of mild infections after the vaccine and one person has very high temperature after the second dose (plus he had covid before vaccination). However, the published data about Russian vaccine Sputnik was criticized for fraud and there is a lot of sceptics, especially because the Russian government participated before in disinformation.

A scientist tried to infect himself with covid after six months of the first infection, was reinfected and had a heavier illness.

It was calculated that additional mortality in Russia was 6.2 times the reported coronavirus morality.

Moscow elevator factory started to produce elevators with UV cleaning which automatically turns on when people are out. I discussed this idea in our post about UV in LW.

Meanwhile, it was revealed that in the 1980s a dangerous bioweapon was created in the Soviet Union on Twitter: @larrybrilliant: “Revealing. I don’t usually post about bio-terror, or what we used to call CBR weapons. However I once interviewed Gorbachev if he had approved Russian attempt to create a “half smallpox, half Ebola” bio-weapon to use against US. He said “Yes. It was worst decision of my life.”

Nuclear weapons

It was reported that money for the creation of “a weapon to destroy America” was stolen and the creation of the new Sarmat missile is delayed. The Sarmat missile could deliver 10 tons nuclear warhead to the US using a trajectory through the South Pole and thus capable to escape ABM defence. Russian expert estimated that 10 such missiles could “destroy” the US, as each will deliver 6.74-7.5 Mt and will affect 30 millions people. The original date of the commissioning the missile was 2021.

The idea of geophysical weapons is often discussed by Russian experts. Typically, this the idea to attack dormant volcanos like Yellowstone or faults like San Andreas with very large nukes like the ones which could be delivered by Sarmat.

Video about Russian nuclear torpedo ...
The AI Safety Game (UPDATED)
by Daniel Kokotajlo — 2020-12-05T10:27:05.778Z

Last year, Donald Hobson created this awesome AI Safety card game. I and a few other people at MSFP played it and had loads of fun. :) Unfortunately, we've lost the cards, and the rules. So I'm reviving the game here. Enjoy! (Also, please invent and add new cards to the spreadsheet!)

(UPDATE: Thanks to jimrandomh I now have doubled the number of cards!)

(UPDATE: You can play online free thanks to Matej Plavevski)

The basic idea:

There are six decks of cards: Compute, Input-Output, Alignment Data, Politics, Fun, and Problem.

You draw one card from each deck. Then, you try to think of how you could save the world, given the stuff written on the cards. When you think you've got it, you tell the other players, and everyone argues about whether your plan would work or not. Repeat.

The cards:

Can be found here; print it all out and then cut it up with scissors.

The text for all the cards can be found in this spreadsheet. Feel free to copy it and add new cards of your own design, or simply add cards directly to the master sheet. Also feel free to make comments suggesting adjustments to existing cards, etc.

More fleshed-out (optional) rules ideas:

All players can draw cards and create plans simultaneously; perhaps the goal is to be the first player who comes up with a plan that has a 50%+ chance of working. Though I expect the game will work better if it is less competitive and more cooperative.

If you don't like one of the decks, don't play with it. For example, maybe you think the Fun deck is too distracting, or the Problem deck makes things way too hard.

You could let everyone draw an additional card from a deck of their choice, but if they do, they have to also draw a Problem card.

Stronger players can be given handicaps, e.g. one less card or one more Problem card.

There's a place in the spreadsheet to add FAQ/Rulings/Errata, which no doubt will come up a lot as people play and try to stretch the interpretation of the cards.

It is considered unsporting to exploit the fact that you have these powers, rather than the powers themselves. This rule is especially important for super powers that come in the Fun deck. Just use the powers to do stuff, and don't exploit the fact that people might think you are a god or that the whole world is a simulation or something. So, for example, say you have the Magic 100x Multiplier compute card. It's fine for you to start a cloud computing bu...
Map and Territory: Summary and Thoughts
by Adam Zerner — 2020-12-05T08:21:07.031Z

This is the first post in a sequence of posts summarizing Rationality From AI to Zombies.

Rationality, probability theory, and decision theory

Some words are hard to define, but you still have a good sense of what they mean. I've always felt like that about the term "rationality". In describing it to friends, sometimes I'd fumble around and say that it kinda combines a lot of academic fields like statistics, behavioral economics, philosophy, and AI. But really, I think it's just about doing (and believing) what makes sense.

In a broad sense, not a narrow one. As a programmer, I may study relational databases, but that's not what rationality is about. Relational databases is too narrow of a topic for rationality. It's only something I could apply to programming. It's not something I could apply to, say, making dinner. But the planning fallacy can be applied to making dinner, and to bike rides, and the NBA draft, and job hunting, and relationships. It can be applied generally. It's not limited to a specific domain. There are exceptions, but rationality is usually interested in these sorts of more generally applicable ideas. The more generally applicable, the more powerful.

There are a lot of misconceptions about rationality, which basically strawman it as being ultra logical and dismissive of things like intuition, emotions, and practicality.

Hollywood rationality is a popular stereotype of what rationality is about. It presents "rationalists" as word-obsessed, floating in endless verbal space disconnected from reality, reciting figures to more decimal places than are necessary, or speaking in a dull monotone. Hollywood rationalists also tend to either not have strong (or any) emotions. When they do, they often do not express them. Needless to say, this has nothing to do with actual rationality.

Think Spok from Star Trek. This of course is silly. A few posts in the book talk about these strawmans, but I don't really think it's worth discussing further.

Well, there's one thing I want to call out: you don't have to be really good at math to understand rationality. It's something that should be accessible to the average Joe. In practice, there is a little bit of math thrown around, but it's usually pretty accessible. On the other hand, sometimes Eliezer (and other authors) explain things in an overly complicated and/or technical way (he acknowledges this in the preface)...
Luna Lovegood and the Chamber of Secrets - Part 5
by lsusr — 2020-12-05T01:23:19.760Z

"What do you mean 'bureaucratically impossible'?" said Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres.

"It just is," said Mad-Eye Moody.

"Nothing 'just is'," Harry said, "Everything happens for a material reason. What precisely is preventing you from acquiring the permits?"

"I suspect an unfriendly nation-state is employing bureaucramancy against us," Moody said.

"Bureaucramancy," Harry said dryly.

Didn't the Ministry of Magic understand how important this was? No, because Harry had declared the existence of the Sorcerer's Stone to be top secret.

"Can't we just build it without the permits?" Harry said.

"I hope you're not insinuating that a trusted Auror like myself might allow expediency to outweigh accountability," Moody said.

"As if you cared about accountability when you assassinated the Dark Lord of Berzerkistan," said Harry.

"I can neither confirm nor deny whether I have ever set foot in Berzerkistan," Moody said, "But if I had, I can assure you that I would not have broken a single British law within its sovereign borders."

"What is the worst thing that could happen if we completed the Stone Citadel without proper authorization?" Harry asked.

"The end of the world," Moody said. Harry flinched.

"What's the worst thing that is net 'likely' to happen if we build this hospital without proper authorization?" Harry asked, "Will we forfeit a tax exemption or something?"

"You sound like a Dark Lord abusing his political power for the greater good," Moody said.

"It's just a zoning law!"

"The hospital will not be part of Hogwarts and will therefore be unprotected by its wards," Moody said.

Britain had 1% of the planet's magical population. It had 1% of the planet's armies. Hogwarts was a fraction of that. If Harry Potter revealed his hospital to the world it could would catalyze an international crisis. When that day came, it would be to the Chief Warlock's advantage if the Stone Citadel was located inside the Hogwarts wards.

Another three minutes and fifty-four seconds ticked by. Another human being died forever. At times of civilizational inadequacy—which was all the time—Harry Potter could empathize with Lord Voldemort's pleasure at murdering his way through the Ministry bureaucracy.

There was a knock on the door. A dreamy first-year voice said "I'm looking for Harry Potter."

"Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres is busy. He is trying to save and/or destroy the world and/or wizardkind," Harry sai...
Forecasting is a responsibility
by DirectedEvolution — 2020-12-05T00:40:48.251Z

Real world examples of the Parable of Predict-O-Matic show that trust in predictive accuracy has the power to shape world events. Accuracy brings trust, and trust brings power.

It's therefore a bit surprising that more people don't publish verifiable forecasts about major world events, along the lines of Philip Tetlock's Superforecasting. Even if they were guessing randomly, a lucky streak might bring fame and fortune. Publishing your forecasts would be like buying a lottery ticket.

The explanation is that society defends itself against this threat by demanding that forecasters earn the right to predict. Hence, society's obsession with credentials, the struggle over who gets to grant them, and constant attempts to grab the right to predict by unlawful or deceptive means. By requiring that wannabe prognosticators earn a graduate degree before they're taken seriously, and by limit their forecasting privileges to their field of expertise, we hope to cut down on the false positive rate.

No free advertising for lucky charlatans. Forecasting is a privilege, not a right.

However.

Our credentialing system is bloated. Pundits get platforms without a credible track record of success. Feedback loops are inadequate. Ultimately, our system is supposed to rest on democratic accountability.

If citizens aren't qualified to make forecasts, how are they qualified to choose between the experts making forecasts? If I'm not qualified to forecast which economic policy will be most beneficial, or how we should tackle Coronavirus, why am I qualified to vote at all? The point of debate is to understand the world, and we do this by doing our best to make sound mechanistic arguments that generate meaningful predictions.

If voting is a right, then forecasting is also a right.

However.

There is no clear line between evaluating the opinions of experts, and asserting one's own authority. If people don't like the system by which experts are certified, they can invent their own informal process to ratify charlatans.

Experts and charlatans alike advance their careers by learning how to act like Very Serious People. If Very Serious People don't do something as crass as making predictions, neither will experts nor charlatans, and it will be hard to tell them apart. We end up with a group of Very Serious People, all of whom have different audiences, none of whom will do what it takes to show us that thos...