trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Conversation with Paul Christiano on Cause Prioritization Research
by KatjaGrace — 2014-08-29T21:28:11.000Z

I talked to Paul Christiano about his views on cause prioritization as part of a ‘shallow investigation’ (inspired by Givewell) into cause prioritization which will be released soon. Notes from the conversation are cross-posted here from the 80000hours blog, and also available in other formats on my website. Previously in this series, a conversation with Owen Cotton-Barratt on GPP.

Participants

Paul Christiano: Computer science PhD student at UC Berkeley

Katja Grace: Research Assistant, Machine Intelligence Research Institute

Summary

This is a verbatim email conversation from the 26th of March 2014. Paul is a proponent of cause prioritization research. Here he explains his support of prioritization research, and makes some suggestions about how to do it.

Note: Paul is Katja’s boyfriend, so consider reading his inclusion as a relevant expert with a grain of salt.

—

Katja: How promising do you think cause prioritization is generally? Why?

Paul: Defined very broadly—all research that helps us choose what general areas we should be looking into for the best philanthropic impact—I think it is a very strong contender for best thing to be doing at the moment. This judgment is based on optimism about how much money could potentially be directed by the kind of case for impact which we could conceivably construct, but also the belief that there is a good chance that over the very long-term we can hope that the philanthropic community will be radically better-informed and more impactful (think many times) than it currently it is. If that’s the case, then it seems likely that a primary output of modern philanthropy is moving towards that point. This is not so much a story about quickly finding insights that let you find a particular opportunity that is twice as effective, and more a story of accumulating a body of expertise and information that has a very large payoff over the longer-term. I think that (not coincidentally) one can also give shorter-term justifications for prioritization vs. direct spending, which I also find quite compelling but perhaps not quite as much so.

Katja: Why do you think not enough is done already?

Paul: You could mean what evidence do I have that not enough is done, or what explanation can I offer for why not enough has been done even if it really is a good thing. I’m going to answer the second.

I think a very small frac...
The Great Filter is early, or AI is hard
by Stuart_Armstrong — 2014-08-29T16:17:56.740Z

Attempt at the briefest content-full Less Wrong post:

Once AI is developed, it could "easily" colonise the universe. So the Great Filter (preventing the emergence of star-spanning civilizations) must strike before AI could be developed. If AI is easy, we could conceivably have built it already, or we could be on the cusp of building it. So the Great Filter must predate us, unless AI is hard.
Weekly LW Meetups
by FrankAdamek — 2014-08-29T15:43:55.925Z

This summary was posted to LessWrong Main on August 22nd. The following week's summary is here.

Irregularly scheduled Less Wrong meetups are taking place in:

Australia-wide mega-meetup: 24 August 2014 07:00PM
Hamburg - Diet: 29 August 2014 07:00PM
Houston, TX: 13 September 2014 02:00PM
Perth, Australia: More Wrong: 23 August 2014 12:00PM

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:

London Social - August 24th: 24 August 2014 02:00PM
[Melbourne] September Rationality Dojo - Fixed and Growth Mindset: 07 September 2014 03:30PM
Sydney Meetup - August: 27 August 2014 06:30PM
[Utrecht] Cognitive Biases: 23 August 2014 02:00PM
[Utrecht] Topic to be determinined: 06 September 2014 02:00PM
[Utrecht] Debiasing techniques: 20 September 2014 02:00PM
Vienna: 23 August 2014 03:00PM
Washington, D.C.: Museums Meetup: 24 August 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 meetup before the Friday before your meetup!

If you check Less Wrong irregularly, consider subscribing to one or more city-specific mailing list in order to be notified when an irregular meetup is happening: A...
Meetup : Bratislava
by Viliam_Bur — 2014-08-29T12:46:44.763Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Bratislava

WHEN:
08 September 2014 06:00:00PM (+0200)

WHERE:
Bistro The Peach, Mariánska 3, Bratislava

The usual place, the usual time.

Discussion article for the meetup : Bratislava
Meetup : Washington, D.C.: CFAR Related Discussion (Parkour Postponed)
by RobinZ — 2014-08-29T05:17:41.332Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Washington, D.C.: CFAR Related Discussion (Parkour Postponed)

WHEN:
31 August 2014 03:00:00PM (-0400)

WHERE:
National Portrait Gallery

Weather permitting, we will be meeting at the Navy Memorial to practice elementary parkour techniques. Otherwise, we will be meeting at the courtyard of the Portrait Gallery to discuss CFAR-related topics.

Edit: The weather forecast includes a 40% chance of thunderstorms and near-certain high temperatures and humidity, so the parkour meetup is officially postponed.

Discussion article for the meetup : Washington, D.C.: CFAR Related Discussion (Parkour Postponed)
Meetup : West LA Meetup: Lightning Talks
by Scott Garrabrant — 2014-08-29T02:11:14.866Z

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

WHEN:
03 September 2014 07:00:00PM (-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: This week we will try a new type of 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. There will be a small rationality related prize for those who choose to participate!

Discussion article for the meetup : West LA Meetup: Lightning Talks
Calibrating your probability estimates of world events: Russia vs Ukraine, 6 months later.
by Shmi — 2014-08-28T23:37:06.430Z

Some of the comments on the link by James_Miller exactly six months ago provided very specific estimates of how the events might turn out:

James_Miller:

The odds of Russian intervening militarily = 40%.

The odds of the Russians losing the conventional battle (perhaps because of NATO intervention) conditional on them entering = 30%.

The odds of the Russians resorting to nuclear weapons conditional on them losing the conventional battle = 20%.

Me:

"Russians intervening militarily" could be anything from posturing to weapon shipments to a surgical strike to a Czechoslovakia-style tank-roll or Afghanistan invasion. My guess that the odds of the latter is below 5%.

A bet between James_Miller and solipsist:

I will bet you $20 U.S. (mine) vs $100 (yours) that Russian tanks will be involved in combat in the Ukraine within 60 days. So in 60 days I will pay you $20 if I lose the bet, but you pay me $100 if I win.

While it is hard to do any meaningful calibration based on a single event, there must be lessons to learn from it. Given that Russian armored columns are said to capture key Ukrainian towns today, the first part of James_Miller's prediction has come true, even if it took 3 times longer than he estimated.

Note that even the most pessimistic person in that conversation (James) was probably too optimistic. My estimate of 5% appears way too low in retrospect, and I would probably bump it to 50% for a similar event in the future.

Now, given that the first prediction came true, how would one reevaluate the odds of the two further escalations he listed? I still feel that there is no way there will be a "conventional battle" between Russia and NATO, but having just been proven wrong makes me doubt my assumptions. If anything, maybe I should give more weight to what James_Miller (or at least Dan Carlin) has to say on the issue. And if I had any skin in the game, I would probably be even more cautious.
Rationalist house
by Elo — 2014-08-27T22:52:00.221Z

At the Australia online hangout; one of the topics we discussed (before I fell asleep on camera for a bunch of people) Was writing a rationality TV show as an outreach task. Of course there being more ways for this to go wrong than right I figured its worth mentioning the ideas and getting some comments.

The strategy is to have a set of regular characters who's rationality behaviour seems nuts. Effectively sometimes because it is; when taken out of context. Then to have one "blank" person who tries to join - "rationality house". and work things out. My aim was to have each episode straw man a rationality behaviour and then steelman it. Where by the end of the episode it saves the day; makes someone happy; achieves a goal - or some other <generic win-state>.

Here is a list of notes of characters from the hangout or potential topics to talk about.

No showers. Bacterial showers

Stopwatches everywhere

temperature controls everywhere, light controls.

radical honesty person.

Soylent only eating person

born-again atheist

bayesian person

Polyphasic sleep cycles.

I have not written much in my life and certainly never anything for TV but it sounds like a fun project. I figured I would pick a pilot idea; roll with it and see if I can make a script. I could probably also get Sydney folk to act for a first-round web-cast version.

I was wondering if anyone had any other rationality topics that can be easily strawmanned then steelmanned worth adding to the list. And if anyone had experience worth sharing with writing for TV, as well as anyone interested in joining the project to write or be a sounding board...
Meetup : London Meetup - Effective Altruism
by kerspoon — 2014-08-27T20:11:30.657Z

Discussion article for the meetup : London Meetup - Effective Altruism

WHEN:
31 August 2014 02:00:00PM (+0100)

WHERE:
The Shakespeare Inn, Holborn, London

LessWrong London are having another awesome meetup and we would love for you to come!

Since I have recently attended the UK and the USA effective altruism summit (http://www.effectivealtruismsummit.com/) I thought that could be the topic of this event. I'll try and answer questions about it and say what went on when we gathered a load of charities together for a long weekend. I'm sure some people will want to split off and chat about other things and that is fine too.

The plan is to meet at The Shakespeare Inn, 200m from Holborn Underground at 2pm on Sunday 31th August. We will officially finish at 4pm but many people stay longer. We will have a bit of paper with the LessWrong logo on it so you can find us easily.

If you have any questions, or are thinking of coming, feel free to email me (james) at kerspoon+lw@gmail.com or call me on 07429552244. Otherwise, just turn up!

Hope to see you there,
James

P.S err on the side of turning-up, we're friendly, and it's fun :)

Discussion article for the meetup : London Meetup - Effective Altruism
Meetup : Regular Moscow Meetup
by Alexander230 — 2014-08-27T10:42:14.690Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Regular Moscow Meetup

WHEN:
31 August 2014 02:00:00PM (+0400)

WHERE:
Russia, Moscow, ulitsa L'va Tolstogo 16

Here's our plan:

A talk about Symbolic self-completion theory.

A talk about Binaural beats.

Training game.

A talk about How to measure anything.

Debates on Poppers' protocol.

Details and schedule:
https://lesswrong-ru.hackpad.com/-31--Ha1ZZZn9dPk

Yudcoins, positive reinforcement and pizza will all be present. If you've been to our meetups, you know what I'm talking about, and if you didn't, the best way to find out is to come and see for yourself.

Info for newcomers:
We gather in the Yandex office, you need the first revolving door under the archway. Here is a guide how to get there:
http://company.yandex.ru/contacts/redrose/

Call Slava at +7(926)313-96-42 if you're late.
We start at 14:00 and stay until at least 19-20. Please pay attention that we only gather near the entrance and then come inside.

Discussion article for the meetup : Regular Moscow Meetup
Meetup : Canberra: Akrasia-busters!
by DanielFilan — 2014-08-27T02:47:14.264Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Canberra: Akrasia-busters!

WHEN:
13 September 2014 06:00:00PM (+1000)

WHERE:
108 North Road, Acton, ACT

Alexa will give a talk about using rewards to fight akrasia. Where is it better to set up external rewards and where should we focus on intrinsic motivation? Techniques include making short-term actions feel related to long-term ones as well as actually being so, to increase motivation and reduce boredom and apathy, and using intrinsic motivation to stop worrying about whether an instrumental action will work instead of just doing it.

General meetup info:

If you use Facebook, please join our group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/lwcanberra/

Structured meetups are held on the second Saturday and fourth Friday of each month from 6 pm until late in the CSIT building, room N101 (except for this meetup, which will be held in Bruce Hall).

Discussion article for the meetup : Canberra: Akrasia-busters!
[LINK] Could a Quantum Computer Have Subjective Experience?
by Shmi — 2014-08-26T18:55:43.420Z

Yet another exceptionally interesting blog post by Scott Aaronson, describing his talk at the Quantum Foundations of a Classical Universe workshop, videos of which should be posted soon. Despite the disclaimer "My talk is for entertainment purposes only; it should not be taken seriously by anyone", it raises several serious and semi-serious points about the nature of conscious experience and related paradoxes, which are generally overlooked by the philosophers, including Eliezer, because they have no relevant CS/QC expertise. For example:

Is an FHE-encrypted sim with a lost key conscious?

If you "untorture" a reversible simulation, did it happen? What does the untorture feel like?

Is Vaidman brain conscious? (You have to read the blog post to learn what it is, not going to spoil it.)

Scott also suggests a model of consciousness which sort-of resolves the issues of cloning, identity and such, by introducing what he calls a "digital abstraction layer" (again, read the blog post to understand what he means by that). Our brains might be lacking such a layer and so be "fundamentally unclonable".

Another interesting observation is that you never actually kill the cat in the Schroedinger's cat experiment, for a reasonable definition of "kill".

There are several more mind-blowing insights in this "entertainment purposes" post/talk, related to the existence of p-zombies, consciousness of Boltzmann brains, the observed large-scale structure of the Universe and the "reality" of Tegmark IV.

I certainly got the humbling experience that Scott is the level above mine, and I would like to know if other people did, too.

Finally, the standard bright dilettante caveat applies: if you think up a quick objection to what an expert in the area argues, and you yourself are not such an expert, the odds are extremely heavy that this objection is either silly or has been considered and addressed by the expert already.
Reverse engineering of belief structures
by Stefan_Schubert — 2014-08-26T18:00:31.094Z

(Cross-posted from my blog.)

Since some belief-forming processes are more reliable than others, learning by what processes different beliefs were formed is for several reasons very useful. Firstly, if we learn that someone's belief that p (where p is a proposition such as "the cat is on the mat") was formed a reliable process, such as visual observation under ideal circumstances, we have reason to believe that p is probably true. Conversely, if we learn that the belief that p was formed by an unreliable process, such as motivated reasoning, we have no particular reason to believe that p is true (though it might be - by luck, as it were). Thus we can use knowledge about the process that gave rise to the belief that p to evaluate the chance that p is true.

Secondly, we can use knowledge about belief-forming processes in our search for knowledge. If we learn that some alleged expert's beliefs are more often than not caused by unreliable processes, we are better off looking for other sources of knowledge. Or, if we learn that the beliefs we acquire under certain circumstances - say under emotional stress - tend to be caused by unreliable processes such as wishful thinking, we should cease to acquire beliefs under those circumstances.

Thirdly, we can use knowledge about others' belief-forming processes to try to improve them. For instance, if it turns out that a famous scientist has used outdated methods to arrive at their experimental results, we can announce this publically. Such "shaming" can be a very effective means to scare people to use more reliable methods, and will typically not only have an effect on the shamed person, but also on others who learn about the case. (Obviously, shaming also has its disadvantages, but my impression is that it has played a very important historical role in the spreading of reliable scientific methods.)

A useful way of inferring by what process a set of beliefs was formed is by looking at its structure. This is a very general method, but in this post I will focus on how we can infer that a certain set of beliefs most probably was formed by (politically) motivated cognition. Another use is covered here and more will follow in future posts.

Let me give two examples. Firstly, suppose that we give American voters the following four questions:

Do expert scientists mostly agree that genetically modified foods are safe?

Do

...
Changes to my workflow
by paulfchristiano — 2014-08-26T17:29:42.661Z

About 18 months ago I made a post here on my workflow. I've received a handful of requests for follow-up, so I thought I would make another post detailing changes since then. I expect this post to be less useful than the last one.

For the most part, the overall outline has remained pretty stable and feels very similar to 18 months ago. Things not mentioned below have mostly stayed the same. I believe that the total effect of continued changes have been continued but much smaller improvements, though it is hard to tell (as opposed to the last changes, which were more clearly improvements).

Based on comparing time logging records I seem to now do substantially more work on average, but there are many other changes during this period that could explain the change (including changes in time logging). Changes other than work output are much harder to measure; I feel like they are positive but I wouldn't be surprised if this were an illusion.

Splitting days:

I now regularly divide my day into two halves, and treat the two halves as separate units. I plan each separately and reflect on each separately. I divide them by an hour long period of reflecting on the morning, relaxing for 5-10 minutes, napping for 25-30 minutes, processing my emails, and planning the evening. I find that this generally makes me more productive and happier about the day. Splitting my days is often difficult due to engagements in the middle of the day, and I don't have a good solution to that.

WasteNoTime:

I have longstanding objections to explicitly rationing internet use (since it seems either indicative of a broader problem that should be resolved directly, or else to serve a useful function that would be unwise to remove). That said, I now use the extension WasteNoTime to limit my consumption of blogs, webcomics, facebook, news sites, browser games, etc., to 10 minutes each half-day. This has cut the amount of time I spend browsing the internet from an average of 30-40 minutes to an average of 10-15 minutes. It doesn't seem to have been replaced by lower-quality leisure, but by a combination of work and higher-quality leisure.

Similarly, I turned off the newsfeed in facebook, which I found to improve the quality of my internet time in general (the primary issue was that I would sometimes be distracted by the newsfeed while sending messages over facebook, which wasn't my favorite way to use ...
Meetup : Atlanta August meetup - Media representations
by Adele_L — 2014-08-26T03:27:01.706Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Atlanta August meetup - Media representations

WHEN:
30 August 2014 07:00:00PM (-0400)

WHERE:
2388 Lawrenceville Hwy. Unit L. Decatur, GA 30033

Oge says:

====================================

It’s another video night! Bret Victor is a Web designer who believes that thinkers and creators should have instant feedback when using their tools i.e. computers.
http://worrydream.com/
Let’s watch a video of his titled, “Media for Thinking the Unthinkable” then have a discussion to share the different representations we use for comprehending the ineffable in our daily lives.

====================================

Discussion article for the meetup : Atlanta August meetup - Media representations