trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Take heed, for it is a trap
by Zed — 2011-08-14T10:23:45.930Z

If you have worked your way through most of the sequences you are likely to agree with the majority of these statements:

When people die we should cut off their heads so we can preserve those heads and make the person come back to life in the (far far) future.

It is possible to run a person on Conways Game of Life. This would be a person as real as you or me, and wouldn't be able to tell he's in a virtual world because it looks exactly like ours.

Right now there exist many copies/clones of you, some of which are blissfully happy and some of which are being tortured and we should not care about this at all.

Most scientists disagree with this but that's just because it sounds counter-intuitive and scientists are biased against counterintuitive explanations.

Besides, the scientific method is wrong because it is in conflict with probability theory. Oh, and probability is created by humans, it doesn't exist in the universe.

Every fraction of a second you split into thousands of copies of yourself. Of course you cannot detect these copies scientifically, but that because science is wrong and stupid.

In fact, it's not just people that split but the entire universe splits over and over.

Time isn't real. There is no flow of time from 0 to now. All your future and past selves just exist.

Computers will soon become so fast that AI researchers will be able to create an artificial intelligence that's smarter than any human. When this happens humanity will probably be wiped out.

To protect us against computers destroying humanity we must create a super-powerful computer intelligence that won't destroy humanity.

Ethics are very important and we must take extreme caution to make sure we do the right thing. Also, we sometimes prefer torture to dust-specs.

If everything goes to plan a super computer will solve all problems (disease, famine, aging) and turn us into super humans who can then go on to explore the galaxy and have fun.

And finally, the truth of all these statements is completely obvious to those who take the time to study the underlying arguments. People who disagree are just dumb, irrational, miseducated or a combination thereof.

I learned this all from this website by these guys who want us to give them our money.

In two words: crackpot beliefs.

These statements cover only a fraction of the sequences and although they're deliberately phras...
[SEQ RERUN] Making History Available
by MinibearRex — 2011-08-14T03:24:28.064Z

Today's post, Making History Available was originally published on 31 August 2007. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):

It's easy not to take the lessons of history seriously; our brains aren't well-equipped to translate dry facts into experiences. But imagine living through the whole of human history - imagine watching mysteries be explained, watching civilizations rise and fall, being surprised over and over again - and you'll be less shocked by the strangeness of the next era.

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 Failing to Learn from History, 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.
Magic Tricks Revealed: Test Your Rationality
by Peter Wildeford — 2011-08-13T05:23:25.194Z

In Fake Explanations, Yudkowsky offered a story that has stuck in my mind:

Once upon a time, there was an instructor who taught physics students. One day she called them into her class, and showed them a wide, square plate of metal, next to a hot radiator. The students each put their hand on the plate, and found that the side next to the radiator cool, and the distant side warm. And the instructor said, Why do you think this happens? Some students guessed convection of air currents, and others guessed strange metals in the plate. They devised many creative explanations, none stooping so low as to say "I don't know" or "This seems impossible."

In this story it is also telling that in the many thoughts and explanations that surfaced, the idea "the teacher turned the plate around" was never considered. The students failed to see the correct answer because they weren't thinking creatively enough. While the correct approach in this situation is indeed to notice your confusion, a worthwhile approach still could be to list all the possible solutions you think could be the answer. (And of course only list real solutions that you actually understand, not fake ones.)

So how can we improve this ability to expand our creativity when it comes to considering explanations, so things like "the teacher turned the plate around" enters our list of considerations?

One possible answer: study magic tricks.

In addition to writing and reading stuff on the internet, another hobby I like to indulge in is doing magic tricks with a deck of cards. Many of the tricks I know are very impressive, such as making cards switch places or appearing to read people's minds. However, a lot of the tricks I know are very stunningly simple; some of them don't even involve slight of hand, and could be done by ten-year-olds with little practice. They're just that that cleverly crafted.

I learned a lot of these tricks from YouTube -- many videos will show you a trick and then teach you how it is done. Personally, I don't find the revelation of a trick to take away any of my enjoyment, because I find joy in the merely real, and care little for perpetuating mystery.

However, these YouTube videos for how tricks are done also provide a very effective test for your rationality: watch the trick on the video, and after it is done, ...
Does quantum mechanics make simulations negligible?
by homunq — 2011-08-13T01:53:17.622Z

I've written a prior post about how I think that the Everett branching factor of reality dominates that of any plausible simulation, whether the latter is run on a Von Neumann machine, on a quantum machine, or on some hybrid; and thus the probability and utility weight that should be assigned to simulations in general is negligible. I also argued that the fact that we live in an apparently quantum-branching world could be construed as weak anthropic evidence for this idea. My prior post was down-modded into oblivion for reasons that are not relevant here (style, etc.) If I were to replace this text you're reading with a version of that idea which was more fully-argued, but still stylistically-neutral (unlike my prior post), would people be interested?
A Problem with Abbreviations and Acronyms
by billswift — 2011-08-12T20:41:41.585Z

I posted this in the comments at Eric Raymond's blog:

I am really tired of three letter acronyms. There are too few alternatives, so even though there may not be much confusion in context, the first thing that springs to mind is not likely to be correct, which brings you to a screeching halt while you think about it – like a confusing mis-spelling of a word.

For example, I hate rms, meaning Stallman, because every time I see it I first think root-mean-square which I was familiar with long before I ever used a computer. And I used to live in Prince George’s county Maryland, so everything starting with PG brings up the wrong initial response.

Then I realized some here may find it useful.

Extensive use of abbreviations and acronyms was primarily a convenience for writers, when writing was done by hand and then by typewriter, there is less justification for it now when most writing is done by computer. And as my comment points out it is usually a negative for readers. It does benefit readers when you can convert a long phrase into a readable word, SCUBA and LASER spring to mind, but that doesn't occur often.
Anthropics Does Not Work LIke That
by Pavitra — 2011-08-12T18:52:20.375Z

People around here seem to think that a recent series of near-misses, such as not destroying the world in the Cold War, is evidence in favor of quantum immortality.

This fails to appreciate that the anthropic selection bias has no limit on how far back it can make things retroactively seem to happen. If, as has been suggested, a majority of the Everett branches from our 1950 destroyed the world, then it is equally true that a majority of the Everett branches from our 1750 in which there is someone still alive in 2010 failed to contain probably-world-destroying technology.

The existence of x-risk near-miss events should be taken as evidence against quantum immortality.
"Meetup" proposal: Google+
by  — 2011-08-12T17:32:34.253Z

Not all of us live near big cities. I know of only one Less Wronger in the Grand Rapids, MI area apart from myself, and the nearest existing meetup is in Madison, WI, across Lake Michigan. I'd like to go to a Less Wrong meetup with more than just a couple of people, but I don't want to have to drive six hours each way.

I have tried Google+'s "Hangouts" feature, and it's really quite nice. It's a many-way video chat system, so it goes without saying that if you've tried video chat before, Hangouts will be quite similar. It also lets you play YouTube videos in synchrony. In short, if you like sitting on the couch with people watching TV, Hangouts are perfect for you.

So, I propose having a meetup on Google+ on Saturday, August 27, at 5:00 PM EDT (21:00 UTC). The date and time can be changed, of course, but I don't want to commit to anything on the 20th. Search for my name (Tanner Swett) at that time, and hopefully you'll see a hangout listed. I will try to be around for at least an hour.

Naturally, ideas for stuff to do would be appreciated. Perhaps we could watch some TED talks, or chat about a specific subject, or play some game. I don't really have much hanging-out experience to go on here.

Any thoughts? Should we meet at a different time? What should we do?
Overcoming bias in others
by homunq — 2011-08-12T15:38:32.282Z

Say that you are observing someone in a position of power. You have good reason to believe that this person is falling prey to a known cognitive bias, and that this will tend to affect you negatively. You also can tell that the person is more than intelligent enough to understand their mistake, if they were motivated to do so. You have an opportunity to say one thing to the person - around 500 words of argument. They will initially perceive you as a low-status member of their own tribe. The power differential is extreme enough that, after they have attended this one thing, they will never pay any attention to you again. What can you do to best disrupt their bias?

This is clearly a setup where the odds are against you. Still, what kind of strategies would give you the best odds? I've deliberately made the situation vague, so as to emphasize abstract strategies. If certain strategies would work best against certain biases or personality types, feel free to state it in your answer.

I'm making this a post of its own because I find here much more discussion of how to overcome or subvert your own biases, somewhat less of how to recruit rationalists, and almost none of how to try to overcome a specific bias in another person without necessarily converting them into a committed rationalist overall.
Munich Meetup, Saturday September 10th, 2PM
by David Althaus — 2011-08-12T14:04:14.871Z

When: Saturday, September 10th, 2PM.

Where: Munich Central Station, Coffee Fellows cafe, Bahnhofsplatz 2, First floor. I will be there with a Lesswrong sign. If you can't find it, you can call me: 0160-93132663 .

According to this doodle-survey 5 people (including me) could attend. And of course you are welcome too!

If the cafe sucks, we could easily go elsewhere. I've merely chosen the place, because it's relatively nice, near the central station and easy to find.

Lurkers and newbies are very welcome!
Easy money: Find me a new job, get $1000
by Andrew_Taskify — 2011-08-12T13:03:27.106Z

I normally post under a different name, which you can find by looking at my posting history, specifically, this thread. I need to keep the search somewhat secret, so I'm adding a trivial barrier to identifying me.
Anyway, I haven't been very good at job searches, and I have spare money, so I figured I'd just outsource the effort (in parallel with my own continuing efforts, of course). In theory, this shouldn't even be difficult, because I'm already employed, very well, in my area of expertise, and have been for over six years, and am only trying to switch because I can't stand my current city. (And a sense that I could be making more of my potential.)
But practice is different, and that's where you come in. Here's the deal: If you find me a job matching my skills and qualifications (and located per the next paragraph), and I'm there for a month, you get $1000. And to avoid making it an all-or-nothing deal, if you just get me to the interview stage, you get $100. You already know me from my posts here, so if you know someone who could use me, please connect the two of us.

I would like for it to be in (in decreasing order of preference) Austin, Houston, NYC, or San Francisco, or at least allow me to live there while earning income from the job. However, any city with a LW community is fine as long as you clear it with me first.

So, here are my skill and qualifications (resume file available, just PM or email me):
- Visual Studio with C++, C#, and Visual Web Developer; MATLAB programming, including Simulink and digital signal processing; finite-element modeling with MSC Patran and Nastran (and augmented by MATLAB); MathCAD; Mathematica; passed Fundamentals of Engineering Exam, earning EIT (Engineer-in-Training) license; perfect scores on GRE analytical and quantitative.
In my six years as an aerospace engineer, I:
- Created and refined finite element models (FEMs) of aircraft (pre- and post-modification) to predict structural response to loading; used both Patran and, at times, MATLAB, to create these models, and Nastran to compute their output.
- Participated in monitoring flight test telemetry for anomalous readings, compared test results to our aircraft FEMs to determine model accuracy, and updated parameters and assumptions to best account for such data.
- Wrote MATLAB software packages to automate the process of analyzing d...
Meetup : Less Wrong Helsinki meetup
by Kellopyy — 2011-08-11T16:25:36.746Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Less Wrong Helsinki meetup

WHEN:
18 August 2011 06:00:00PM (+0300)

WHERE:
Ylioppilasaukio 5, Helsinki, Finland

We're having a Less Wrong meetup at Cafe Picnic starting at 18:00 local time and anyone is welcome to keep a a short introduction to her/his matter of interest.

Discussion article for the meetup : Less Wrong Helsinki meetup
An EPub of Eliezer's blog posts
by Paul Crowley — 2011-08-11T14:20:31.512Z

Update 2015-03-21: I would now strongly recommend reading Rationality: From AI to Zombies over this. Though the blog posts I collected here are the starting point for that book, considerable work has gone into selecting and arranging the essays as well as adding thoughtful new material and useful material not in this collection. Only if you've already read that should you consider starting on this; you can always skip the essays you've already read.

This is all Eliezer's posts to Less Wrong up to the end of 2010 as an EPub. Can be read with Aldiko and other eBook readers, though you might have to jump through some hoops on the Kindle (haven't tried it). I shared it privately with a few friends in the past, but I thought it might be more generally useful. Highlights include that all the screwed-up Unicode is fixed AFAIK.

Source code.

Update: have now made a MOBI for the Kindle too.

Updated 2011-08-13 17:20 BST: Now with images!
Recent popular books on human irrationality to recommend to your friends
by lukeprog — 2011-08-11T06:00:36.117Z

Shore, Blunder

Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow

Ariely, Predictably Irrational

Koppel, Investing and the Irrational Mind

Brafman & Brafman, Sway

Thaler & Sunstein, Nudge

Marcus, Kluge

Kaplan & Kaplan, Bozo Sapiens

Schulz, Being Wrong

Tavris & Aronson, Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)

Lehrer, How We Decide

Burton, On Being Certain

Chabris & Simons, The Invisible Gorilla

Hallinan, Why We Make Mistakes

Fine, A Mind of Its Own

Kida, Don't Believe Everything You Think

McRaney, You Are Not So Smart

Veteran Less Wrongers are unlikely to find anything new here, but I've found the examples and exposition herein to be useful when I try to explain rationality concepts to other people in a fun and concise way.
Why epidemiology will not correct itself
by gwern — 2011-08-11T00:54:13.874Z

We're generally familiar here with the appalling state of medical and dietary research, where most correlations turn out to be bogus. (And if we're not, I have collected a number of links on the topic in my DNB FAQ that one can read, see http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ#flaws-in-mainstream-science-and-psychology - probably the best first link to read would be Ioannidis's “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”.)

I recently found a talk arguing that this problem was worse than one might assume, with false positives in the >80% range, and more interestingly, why the rate is so high and will remain high for the foreseeable future. Young asserts, pointing to papers and textbooks by epidemiologists, that they are perfectly aware of what the Bonferroni correction does (and why one would use it) and that they choose to not use it because they do not want to risk any false negatives. (Young also conducts some surveys showing less interest in public sharing of data and other good things like that, but that seems to me to be much less important than the statistical tradeoffs.)

There are three papers online that seem representative:

Rothman (1990)

Perneger (1998)

Vandenbroucke, PLoS Med (2008)

Reading them is a little horrifying when one considers the costs of the false positives, all the people trying to stay healthy by following what is only random noise, and the general (and justified!) contempt for science by those aware of the false positive rate. (I enlarge on this vein of thought on Reddit. The recent kerfluffle about whether salt really is bad for you - medical advice that has stressed millions and will cost more millions due to New York City's war on salt - is a reminder of what is at stake.)

The take-away, I think, is to resolutely ignore anything to do with diet & exercise that is not a randomized trial. Correlations may be worth paying attention to in other areas but not in health.
Strategic ignorance and plausible deniability
by Kaj_Sotala — 2011-08-10T09:30:26.205Z

This is the third part in a mini-sequence presenting material from Robert Kurzban's excellent book Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind.

The press secretary of an organization is tasked with presenting outsiders with the best possible image of the organization. While they're not supposed to outright lie, they do use euphemisms and try to only mention the positive sides of things.
A plot point in the TV series West Wing is that the President of the United States has a disease which he wants to hide from the public. The White House Press Secretary is careful to ask whether there's anything she needs to know about the President's health, instead of whether there's anything she should know. As the President's disease is technically something she should know but not something she needs to know, this allows the President to hide the disease from her without lying to her (and by extension, to the American public). As she then doesn't need to lie either, she can do her job better.
If our minds are modular, critical information can be kept away from the modules that are associated with consciousness and speech production. It can often be better if the parts of the system that exist to deal with others are blissfully ignorant, or even actively mistaken, about information that exists in other parts of the system.
In one experiment, people could choose between two options. Choosing option A meant they got $5, and someone else also got $5. Option B meant that they got $6 and the other person got $1. About two thirds were generous and chose option A.

A different group of people played a slightly different game. As before, they could choose between $5 or $6 for themselves, but they didn't know how their choice would affect the other person's payoff. They could find out, however – if they just clicked a button, they'd be told whether the choice was between $5/$5 and $6/$1, or $5/$1 and $6/$5. From a subject's point of view, clicking a button might tell them that picking the option they actually preferred meant they were costing the other person $4. Not clicking meant that they could honestly say that they didn't know what their choice cost the other person. It turned out that about half of the people refused to look at the other player's payoffs, and that many more subjects chose $6/? than $5/?.
There are many situations where not knowing somet...
Meetup : Houston Hackerspace Meetup
by Cog — 2011-08-10T06:18:35.803Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Houston Hackerspace Meetup

WHEN:
14 August 2011 02:00:00PM (-0500)

WHERE:
2010 Commerce St, Houston, Tx. 77002

Another weekly meetup at the Houston TX/RX hackerspace. I'll be giving an overview of the psychology and neuroscience of liking and wanting, followed possibly by a game of Munchkin or Catan. Seeya there.

Discussion article for the meetup : Houston Hackerspace Meetup
Meetup : Madison
by fiddlemath — 2011-08-10T04:01:29.096Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Madison

WHEN:
16 August 2011 06:00:00PM (-0500)

WHERE:
2100 Winnebago St, Madison, WI

Note: if you're in Madison, you should sign up for the Less Wrong Madison mailing list! Even if you can't attend this meeting, other activities and discussions on that mailing list might appeal to you.

The director of Sector67 has generously offered us meeting space. Sector67 is a hackerspace, and is one of my favorite places in Madison. We'll mostly be in the meeting room, not the workshop.

Along with expected banter and continued everyone-meeting-everyone, Patrick (orthonormal) will be presenting his argument to dissolve the question of qualia.

Again: Make sure you're on the Less Wrong Madison mailing list. :)

Discussion article for the meetup : Madison