trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
What are the most common and important trade-offs that decision makers face? 
by Andy_McKenzie — 2014-11-03T05:03:16.968Z

This is one part shameless self-promotion and one (hopefully larger) part seeking advice and comments. I'm wondering: what do you guys think are the most common and/or important trade-offs that decision makers (animals, humans, theoretical AIs) face across different domains?

Of course you could say "harm of doing something vs benefit of doing it", but that isn't particularly interesting. That's the definition of a trade-off. I'm hoping to carve out a general space below that, but still well above any particular decision.

Here's what I have so far:

1) Efficiency vs Unpredictability

2) Speed vs Accuracy

3) Exploration vs Exploitation

4) Precision vs Simplicity

5) Surely Some vs Maybe More

6) Some Now vs More Later

7) Flexibility vs Commitment

8) Sensitivity vs Specificity

9) Protection vs Freedom

10) Loyalty vs Universality

11) Saving vs Savoring

Am I missing anything? I.e., can you think of any other common, important trade-offs that can't be accounted by the above?

Also, since so many of you guys are computer programmers, a particular question: is there any way that the space vs memory trade-off can be generalized or explained in terms of a non-computer domain?

Relevance to rationality: at least in theory, understanding how decisions based on these trade-offs tend to play out will help you, when faced with a similar decision, to make the kind of decision that helps you to achieve your goals.

Here's an intro to the project, which is cross-posted on my blog:

About five years ago I became obsessed with the idea that nobody had collected an authoritative list of all the trade-offs that cuts across broad domains, encompassing all of the sciences. So, I started to collect such a list, and eventually started blogging about it on my old site, some of which you can find in the archives.

Originally I had 25 trade-offs, then I realized that they could be combined until I had only 20, which were published in the first iteration of the list. As I noted above, at this point I wanted to describe all possible trade-offs, from the space vs memory trade-off in computer science, to the trade-offs underlying the periodic table, to deciding what type of tuna fish you should buy at the grocery store.

Eventually, I decided that this would not only be a) practically imposs

...
Group Rationality Diary, November 1-15
by therufs — 2014-11-03T03:58:37.961Z

This is the public group rationality diary for November 1-15.

It's a place to record and chat about it if you have done, or are actively doing, things like:

Established a useful new habit

Obtained new evidence that made you change your mind about some belief

Decided to behave in a different way in some set of situations

Optimized some part of a common routine or cached behavior

Consciously changed your emotions or affect with respect to something

Consciously pursued new valuable information about something that could make a big difference in your life

Learned something new about your beliefs, behavior, or life that surprised you

Tried doing any of the above and failed

Or anything else interesting which you want to share, so that other people can think about it, and perhaps be inspired to take action themselves. Try to include enough details so that everyone can use each other's experiences to learn about what tends to work out, and what doesn't tend to work out.

Thanks to cata for starting the Group Rationality Diary posts, and to commenters for participating.

Previous diary: October 16-31

Next diary: November 16-30

Rationality diaries archive
Productivity through self-loyalty
by So8res — 2014-11-02T07:00:00.000Z

1

I can be pretty dang productive when I put my mind to it.

Many people have a generic mind-model which runs roughly as follows: a person's reported desires are but one voice among the thronging mob of forces that govern the brain, and it takes significant effort and force of will to align the mob for long enough for people to get something done. Many of us have experienced a desire to stop procrastinating, and then have watched helplessly as we continue to surf the internet. Many of us have resolved to do something difficult, only to watch the opportunity flit by us as we stand motionless at the sidelines.

People use something like this model when they speak of akrasia, the tendency to act against your own better judgement. Haidt analogizes the brain to someone riding an elephant, where the conscious mind is a rider struggling to steer. Kahneman writes of a dichotomy between "fast," emotional, immediate processes that govern most of our thinking, and "slow," deliberate, conscious processes that occasionally assume command. I have found that the "spoon theory" model of energy reserves resonates for many people, even those who aren't chronically ill or otherwise disabled.

In all these models, there is a tendency to separate the voice from the mob. Insofar as the voice has the ability to direct the mob (steer the elephant, convince system 1, etc.), we get to do what we want. But when the mob loses interest or focus or motivation, we are at it's leisure.

I find a lot of truth in these models, and so do many others. Thus, many people, upon seeing my high levels of productivity, expect that I must be very very good at keeping tight control over the mental mob, and forcing them to do things that they would rather not do. It's not uncommon for people to remark that I need to be careful about strong-arming the mob (as eventually they rebel, leading to burn-out), or for people to tell me that I must have some sort of iron will (which they cannot replicate).

I don't think this is the case. As I said last time:

A problem isn't solved until it's solved automatically, without need for attention or willpower.

It's possible to force the mob to do something, and this is why willpower is often useful in the short term. But it's seldom a good idea to try to force yourself to do things the mob doesn't want to do in the long term. Ultimately, the mob is the one actually managing your m...
Musings on non-stability of mind-states, etc.
by Dorikka — 2014-11-02T02:43:39.423Z

I thought about some stuff and have written down notes for my future reference. I'm pasting it below in case others find it useful or thought provoking. Apologies for inferential distance problems caused by my language/notation, etc. Posting my notes seemed superior to not doing so, especially given that the voting system allows for filtering content if enough people don't want to see it.

---

Mind-states are non-stable with respect to attributes valued by some agents. This is true not only with respect to death, etc but also biological/chemical changes that occur perpetually, causing behaviors in the presence of identical stimuli/provocations to differ substantially. The English language (and many other human languages) seem to hide this by their use of "pronouns" and names (handles) for humans and other objects deemed sentient which do not change from the moment the human/animal/etc is born or otherwise appears to come into existence.

As a result of this, efforts to preserve mind-states are unsuccessful while they allow mind-states to change (replacing one state with another, without retaining the pre-change state). Even given life-extension technology such that biological death is prevented, this phenomenon would likely continue - technology to preserve all mind-states as they came into existence would likely be more difficult to engineer than such required to attain mere immortality. Yet agents may also value the existence (and continued existance) of mind-states which have never existed, necessitating a division of resources between preserving existing mind-states and causing new ones to exist (perhaps variants of existing ones after they "have a (certain) experience")). Agents with such values face an engineering/(resource allocation) problem, not just a "value realization" problem.

Also consider that humans do not appear to exist in a state of perpetual optimization/strategizing; they execute, and the balance between varying methods of search and execution does not appear to be the result of such a process - to the extent such a process occurs, the recursive depth is likely minimal. Mental processes are often triggered by sensory cues or provocations (c/p). The vast majority of these c/p encountered by humans consistently trigger a small subset of the set of mental processes which are implementable by human brains, even once the large space of processes wh...
November 2014 Monthly Bragging Thread
by elharo — 2014-11-01T20:49:50.375Z

Your job, should you choose to accept it, is to comment on this thread explaining the most awesome thing you've done this month. You may be as blatantly proud of yourself as you feel. You may unabashedly consider yourself the coolest freaking person ever because of that awesome thing you're dying to tell everyone about. This is the place to do just that.

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

So, what's the coolest thing you've done this month?
November 2014 Media Thread
by ArisKatsaris — 2014-11-01T15:42:29.395Z

This is the monthly thread for posting media of various types that you've found that you enjoy. Post what you're reading, listening to, watching, and your opinion of it. Post recommendations to blogs. Post whatever media you feel like discussing! To see previous recommendations, check out the older threads.

Rules:

Please avoid downvoting recommendations just because you don't personally like the recommended material; remember that liking is a two-place word. If you can point out a specific flaw in a person's recommendation, consider posting a comment to that effect.

If you want to post something that (you know) has been recommended before, but have another recommendation to add, please link to the original, so that the reader has both recommendations.

Please post only under one of the already created subthreads, and never directly under the parent media thread.

Use the "Other Media" thread if you believe the piece of media you want to discuss doesn't fit under any of the established categories.

Use the "Meta" thread if you want to discuss about the monthly media thread itself (e.g. to propose adding/removing/splitting/merging subthreads, or to discuss the type of content properly belonging to each subthread) or for any other question or issue you may have about the thread or the rules.
A website standard that is affordable to the poorest demographics in developing countries?
by Ritalin — 2014-11-01T13:43:22.923Z

Fact: the Internet is excruciatingly slow in many developing countries, especially outside of the big cities.

Fact: today's websites are designed in such a way that they become practically impossible to navigate with connections in the order of, say, 512kps. Ram below 4GB and a 7-year old CPU are also a guarantee of a terrible experience.

Fact: operating systems are usually designed in such an obsolescence-inducing way as well.

Fact: the Internet is a massive source of free-flowing information and a medium of fast, cheap communication and networking.

Conclusion: lots of humans in the developing world are missing out on the benefits of a technology that could be amazingly empowering and enlightening.

I just came across this: what would the internet 2.0 have looked like in the 1980s. This threw me back to my first forays in Linux's command shell and how enamoured I became with its responsiveness and customizability. Back then my laptop had very little autonomy, and very few classrooms had plugs, but by switching to pure command mode I could spend the entire day at school taking notes (in LaTeX) without running out. But I switched back to the GUI environment as soon as I got the chance, because navigating the internet on the likes of Lynx is a pain in the neck.

As it turns out, I'm currently going through a course on energy distribution in isolated rural areas in developing countries. It's quite a fascinating topic, because of the very tight resource margins, the dramatic impact of societal considerations, and the need to tailor the technology to the existing natural renewable resources. And yet, there's actually a profit to be made investing in these projects; if managed properly, it's win-win.

And I was thinking that, after bringing them electricity and drinkable water, it might make sense to apply a similar cost-optimizing, shoestring-budget mentality to the Internet. We already have mobile apps and mobile web standards which are built with the mindset of "let's make this smartphone's battery last as long as possible".

Even then, (well-to-do, smartphone-buying) thrid-worlders are somewhat neglected: Samsung and the like have special chains of cheap Android smartphones for Africa and the Middle East. I used to own one; "this cool app that you want to try out is not available for use on this system" were a misery I had to get used to.

It doesn't seem to be m...
The Truth and Instrumental Rationality
by the-citizen — 2014-11-01T11:05:19.576Z

One of the central focuses of LW is instrumental rationality. It's been suggested, rather famously, that this isn't about having true beliefs, but rather its about "winning". Systematized winning. True beliefs are often useful to this goal, but an obsession with "truthiness" is seen as counter-productive. The brilliant scientist or philosopher may know the truth, yet be ineffective. This is seen as unacceptable to many who see instrumental rationality as the critical path to achieving one's goals. Should we all discard our philosophical obsession with the truth and become "winners"?
The River Instrumentus
You are leading a group of five people away from deadly threat which is slowly advancing behind you. You come to a river. It looks too dangerous to wade through, but through the spray of the water you see a number of stones. They are dotted across the river in a way that might allow you to cross. However, the five people you are helping are extremely nervous and in order to convince them to cross, you will not only have to show them its possible to cross, you will also need to look calm enough after doing it to convince them that it's safe. All five of them must cross, as they insist on living or dying together.
Just as you are about to step out onto the first stone it splutters and moves in the mist of the spraying water. It looks a little different from the others, now you think about it. After a moment you realise its actually a person, struggling to keep their head above water. Your best guess is that this person would probably drown if they got stepped on by five more people. You think for a moment, and decide that, being a consequentialist concerned primarily with the preservation of life, it is ultimately better that this person dies so the others waiting to cross might live. After all, what is one life compared with five?
However, given your need for calm and the horror of their imminent death at your hands (or feet), you decide it is better not to think of them as a person, and so you instead imagine them being simply a stone. You know you'll have to be really convincingly calm about this, so you look at the top of the head for a full hour until you utterly convince yourself that the shape you see before you is factually indicitative not of a person, but of a stone. In your mind, tops of heads aren't people - now they're stones. This is instrumentally ...
Meetup : West LA Meetup: Lightning Talks
by Scott Garrabrant — 2014-11-01T06:53:13.649Z

Discussion article for the meetup : West LA Meetup: Lightning Talks

WHEN:
05 November 2014 08:00:00PM (-0700)

WHERE:
11066 Santa Monica Blvd, Los Angeles, CA

How to Find Us: Go into the Del Taco. There will be a Rubik's Cube. Parking is completely free. There is a sign that claims there is a 45-minute time limit, but it is not enforced.

Discussion: Everyone attending is encouraged to bring a 5-10 minute presentation (or lead a 5-10 minute discussion) on any rationality topic that they like. You are welcome to attend even if you do not want to bring a topic. If you already know what you will be talking about, leave a comment, so people can get excited about it.

Note: it starts at 7:00 PM. I do not know why it says it starts at 8. That is wrong.

Discussion article for the meetup : West LA Meetup: Lightning Talks
Meetup : November Rationality Dojo - Ghetto Research
by MelbourneLW — 2014-11-01T03:54:27.330Z

Discussion article for the meetup : November Rationality Dojo - Ghetto Research

WHEN:
02 November 2014 03:30:00PM (+1100)

WHERE:
Ross House Association, 247-251 Flinders Lane, Melbourne

[ATTN: Please remember the new location for the dojos: the Jenny Florence Room, Level 3, Ross House at 247 Flinders Lane, Melbourne.

3:30pm start / arrival - formal dojo activities will commence at 4:00pm.]

The Less Wrong Sunday Rationality Dojos are crafted to be serious self-improvement sessions for those committed to the Art of Rationality and personal growth. Each month a community member will run a session involving a presentation of content, discussion, and exercises.

Continuing the succession of immensely successful dojos, Patrick will run a session on Ghetto Research (or how to collect data with limited resources).

As always, we will review the personal goals we committed to at the previous Dojo (I will have done X by the next Dojo). Our goals are now being recorded via Google Forms here - https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1MCHH4MpbW0SI_2JyMSDlKnnGP4A0qxojQEZoMZIdopk/viewform, and Melbourne Less Wrong organisers have access to the form results if you wish to review the goals you set last month.

This month, we are also seeking 2-3 lightning talks from members. Speakers will be limited to 5 minutes with room for questions. We will be asking for talks from attendees present, but if you already have a talk topic in mind, please contact Louise at lvalmoria@gmail.com

The Dojo is likely to run for 2-3 hours, after which some people will get dinner together.

If you have any trouble finding the venue or getting in, call Louise on 0419 192 367.

If you would like to present at a future Dojo or suggest a topic, please fill it in on the Rationality Dojo Roster: http://is.gd/dojoroster

Discussion article for the meetup : November Rationality Dojo - Ghetto Research
Why is the A-Theory of Time Attractive?
by Tyrrell_McAllister — 2014-10-31T23:11:24.608Z

I've always been puzzled by why so many people have such strong intuitions about whether the A-theory or the B-theory1 of time is true. [ETA: I've written "A-theory" and "B-theory" as code for "presentism" and "eternalism", but see the first footnote.] It seems like nothing psychologically important turns on this question. And yet, people often have a very strong intuition supporting one theory over the other. Moreover, this intuition seems to be remarkably primitive. That is, whichever theory you prefer, you probably felt an immediate affinity for that conception of time as soon as you started thinking about time at all. The intuition that time is A-theoretic or B-theoretic seems pre-philosophical, whichever intuition you have. This intuition will then shape your subsequent theoretical speculations about time, rather than vice-verse.

Consider, by way of contrast, intuitions about God. People often have a strong pre-theoretical intuition about whether God exists. But it is easy to imagine how someone could form a strong emotional attachment to the existence of God early in life. Can emotional significance explain why people have deeply felt intuitions about time? It seems like the nature of time should be emotionally neutral2.

Now, strong intuitions about emotionally neutral topics aren't so uncommon. For example, we have strong intuitions about how addition behaves for large integers. But usually, it seems, such intuitions are nearly unanimous and can be attributed to our common biological or cultural heritage. Strong disagreeing intuitions about neutral topics seem rarer.

Speaking for myself, the B-theory has always seemed just obviously true. I can't really make coherent sense out of the A-theory. If I had never encountered the A-theory, the idea that time might work like that would not have occurred to me. Nonetheless, at the risk of being rude, I am going to speculate about how A-theorists got that way. (B-theorists, of course, just follow the evidence ;).)

I wonder if the real psycho-philosophical root of the A-theory is the following. If you feel strongly committed to the A-theory, maybe you are being pushed into that position by two conflicting intuitions about your own personal identity.

Intuition 1: On the one hand, you have a notion of personal i...
Weekly LW Meetups
by FrankAdamek — 2014-10-31T19:50:40.171Z

This summary was posted to LW Main on October 24th. The following week's summary is here.

New meetups (or meetups with a hiatus of more than a year) are happening in:

Bangalore Meetup: 15 November 2014 04:15PM

Irregularly scheduled Less Wrong meetups are taking place in:

East Coast Solstice Megameetup: 20 December 2014 03:00PM
European Community Weekend 2015: 12 June 2015 12:00PM
Perth, Australia: Discussion: How to be happy: 04 November 2014 06:00PM
Saint Petersburg meetup - "the lonely one": 31 October 2014 08:00PM
Urbana-Champaign: Meta-systems and getting things done: 26 October 2014 02:00PM
Utrecht: Climate Change: 02 November 2014 03:00PM

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

Austin, TX - Spider House: 25 October 2025 01:30PM
[Cambridge MA] The Design Process: 29 October 2014 07:00PM
Canberra: Would I Lie To You?: 24 October 2014 06:00PM
London Social - October 26th: 26 October 2014 03:00PM
Moscow meetup: Quantum physics is fun: 26 October 2014 03:00PM
Washington, D.C.: Create and Complete: 26 October 2014 03:00PM

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

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

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

Please note that for your meetup to appear in the weekly meetups feature, you need to post your mee...