trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Luna First, But Not To Live There
by NathanielMRouth — 2020-09-08T03:14:56.853Z
Link: https://nathanielmrouth.wordpress.com/2020/08/31/luna-first-but-not-to-live-there/

In certain corners of the astronautics community, there’s a real and substantial debate over whether to prioritize Mars or Luna when planning out the future of human spaceflight. There are good arguments on each side, but I think that neither side makes the correct case.

Luna is attractive because it is close. We know how to land on Luna; we’ve done it before. Building bases on Luna would offer the opportunity to really understand how humans live and operate in space over the long term. It would provide a test-bed for certain technologies that would enable more advanced missions to the planets. If things go wrong, it would be easier to get support from Earth, or to head home if need be.

The counter-argument put forth by the pro-Mars camp is that Luna is a very different world from Mars, and thus wouldn’t provide really all that much advantage for testing Mars-specific technologies. Life support systems on Luna would necessarily use a very closed loop; aside from some water deposits at the poles, astronauts would want to recycle as much as possible. Mars, on the other hand, has water and carbon dioxide and organic molecules in abundance. It offers much better options for building self-sufficient outposts.

There’s also disagreement about the efficacy of using Luna as a refueling stop, so to speak, en route to the Red Planet. From an orbital mechanics standpoint, it’s not a slam-dunk idea, but the argument in practice depends heavily on the specific logistics. In-situ fuel production might just make such a configuration worth it.

In any case, both camps miss the main question when it comes to long-term off-world development: where’s the money coming from?

While Mars is obviously the more attractive target for colonization, we are a very long way from building colonies on other celestial bodies, no matter how good of an idea it is. The reason is very simple: space colonization is an unspeakably expensive proposition. The off-world economy as it currently exists is entirely constructed around servicing needs on Earth, and there are no terrestrial markets which demand colonies on another planet.

I have yet to think of an economic need which a self-sustaining population on Mars would fulfill, that innovative strategies could not fulfill on Earth. Farming food on Mars? We can do hydroponics here. Running out of room ...
Decision theory analysis of whether vaccines should be distributed prior to the completion of stage three trials please
by Tim Liptrot — 2020-09-07T23:50:02.250Z

I’m response to MR’s post on whether vaccines should be released early. The pinned comments there mostly differ about how likely an early vaccine is to kill one in 4,000 or 10000 people. It’s a tough forecasting problem I know, but there must have be tens of vaccines which have gone through the entire trial, so the percentage which reached stage three then had a death rate about 1 in 4000 bears heavily on the question.
A Toy Model of Hingeyness
by B Jacobs — 2020-09-07T17:38:59.826Z

This is a crosspost from the Effective Altruism forum

Epistemic status: Attempt to clarify a vague concept. This should be seen as a jumping of point and not as a definitive model.

Definition of Hingeyness

The Hinge of History refers to a time when we have an unusually high amount of influence over the future of civilization, compared to people who lived in the eras before and after ours.

I will use the model I made for my previous question post to explain why I don't think this definition is very useful. As before, in this model are only two possible choices per year. The number inside the circle refers to the amount of utility that year experiences and the two lines are the two options that this year has to decide on. The amount of utility which each option will add to the next year is written next to the lines. (link to image)

Older decisions are hingier

I think we all agree that we should try to avoid the option that will lead to better results in the next year, but will create less utility in the long run. In this model the year with 1 utility could choose the +2 option, but it should choose the +1 option because it leads to better options next year. Let's assume that all life dies after the last batch of years. The 1 utility then 3 utility then 0 utility option is the worst because you've generated 4 utility in total. 1-3-6 is just as good as 1-2-7, but 1-2- 8 is clearly the best path.

The implication is that later decisions are never hingier than earlier ones. 1 gets a range of options that ranges from 4 utility to 11 utility, no other option get's that kind of range. In fact, it's mathematically impossible that future decisions have a range of options that's larger than the previous decisions had (assuming the universe will end and isn't some kind of loop). It's also mathematically impossible that future decisions have ranges where the best and worst case scenarios give you more utility than the range of the previous years. This is, unless negative utility is possible, which might arguably exist when you have a universe of beings being kept alive and tortured against their will (but it's rare in any case).

Decrease in range

Does that mean that hingeyness is now a useless concept? Not necessarily. The range will never grow, but the amount by which it narrows from year to year varies widely. Let's look at an ext...
How long does it takes to read the sequences?
by nick lacombe — 2020-09-07T17:19:23.898Z

Sorry if that has been answered before, I searched quickly and could not find the answer.

To be more specific, how long does it takes an average reader to read all of the texts in https://www.lesswrong.com/rationality ?

I already read them all (more specifically the version on https://www.readthesequences.com/ ) but I am asking so that I can give an estimate to the people I recomend it to.
Changes in Reality
by  — 2020-09-07T16:18:27.276Z

[Some short thoughts I just wanted to get out of my brain; bullet-points instead of well-structured prose. This is entirely random speculation, and not well-explained. Cross-posted from Grand, Unified, Empty.]

Social systems (laws, customs, memes) are subject to evolutionary pressure from the dynamics of reality; when reality changes, existing social systems are typically no longer in equilibrium and have to evolve, or collapse and be rebuilt. Consider for example the invention of the birth control pill and the resulting impact on family structure, gender relations, etc. Pre-pill social customs around marriage and family were no longer in equilibrium in a world with reliable female birth control, and so society shifted to a new set of customs.
“Change in reality” largely means economic and technological change. New wealth and new capabilities.
“Change in reality” has been accelerating for a long time as new technologies and discoveries unlock new economic prosperity which enables more discoveries, in an explosive feedback loop. Some argue that technology/science have slowed down a lot recently, but I think that’s mostly because our best and brightest are too busy extracting economic value from our recent innovations (computers and, separately, the internet). Once that bounty has been consumed, more general technological progress will resume its previous course.
There is a natural limit on how fast social systems can evolve. Humans can adapt to living under radically different memeplexes, but not instantly, and somebody has to invent those memes first. When reality changes slowly this is fine, as it leaves plenty of time for a multiplicity of experimental memetic shifts in different groups, letting the best adaption dominate with high probability.
At some point in the future (possibly soon?) reality will start changing faster than our social systems can adapt. Our existing laws, customs, memes, and government will be out of equilibrium, but we will not have enough time to converge on a new social system before reality changes again. Society will fragment and human culture will undergo an intense period of adaptive radiation.
The countervailing force is technology’s ability to connect us (the “global village”) and equivalently the law of cultural proximity.
The Four Children of the Seder as the Simulacra Levels
by Zvi — 2020-09-07T15:00:02.899Z

Previously: Unifying the Simulacra Definitions, Simulacra Levels and their Interactions, On Negative Feedback and Simulacra

Simulacra levels are complex, counter-intuitive and difficult to understand.

Thus, it is good and right to continue exploring them partly via story and metaphor.

The metaphor here will be that of the four children from Jewish Passover Seder.

The Jewish Seder tells us of four generations of children: The wise child, the wicked child, the simple child, and the one who does not know how to ask.

The story is profoundly weird and does not, on its face, make much sense. Yet every year it is told anyway. What is going on here?

Many attempts have been made to interpret it.

A while back I wrote the first rationalist seder (later versions can be found here). At the time, the story of the four children did not make sense to me. Why this narrative of decline and fall, of wisdom as something that can only decay?

To make sense of the story of the children and to tie it to the themes I wanted to focus on, I told a reversed story and substituted in generations of rationalists and truth seekers.

In this story, we first learn how to ask, then we are simple, then we are instrumental, then we seek to fully understand, and then finally in a fifth stage we can transcend. We can be great because we stand on the shoulders of giants.

Reversing the order of development is reasonably common, as is an implied fifth child. When I was googling for details of what the sons say, the first hit was a reversed-order story of the children as stages of psychological development, with a fifth stage beyond the four listed.

These are fine tales, worthy of telling. Today, I bring a different story.

I bring the story that I now believe was originally intended.

The four children are the four simulacra levels.

The wise child represents level 1. They want to know how the Seder works.

The wicked child represents level 2. They want to know what the Seder can get them.

The simple child represents level 3. They want to know what the Seder symbolizes.

The child who does not know how to ask represents level 4. They don’t know things anymore.

This hypothesis and the analysis that follows could be me doing what Scott Alexander often did and cherry picking to find entertaining and potentially enlightening connections that were clearly never intended. But I actually don’t think so.

I believe this...
Reference Classes
by Chris_Leong — 2020-09-07T12:52:33.522Z

Epistemic Status: Just some thoughts off the top of my head

Fake Nous recently featured an article on agent-centered evidence:

Sue had a premonition about the flight, and then the plane crashed. For Sue, that’s pretty strong evidence of precognition. We would completely understand Sue’s resolution to never get on a plane that she has a bad feeling about; this would not seem unreasonable at all. But for third parties, it’s not very convincing. Is it?

... This event is a biased sample from the class of stuff that happens. The reason I heard about this story is that something weird happened – if Sue had a premonition that was completely wrong, then the story wouldn’t get repeated and I wouldn’t have heard about it. Furthermore, since there have been billions of people in the world, I should initially expect that some things like this would have happened, even if there were no precognition or ESP.” But when Sue herself experiences the event, she shouldn’t say that. To her, her own life is not a biased sample.

... That seems to make sense. Two people can get “the same evidence” but by a different evidence-collection method, and of course that can affect the significance of the evidence... There is still something weird about this, though, because Sue knows how the situation looks to third parties, and they know how the situation looks to her. Both seemingly know the same facts. The third parties know that Sue’s experience is not a biased sample to her. She knows that her experience is, to other people, just the experience of one among the 7 billion people on earth, and not particularly remarkable to them.

... Another question: what about people who know Sue personally? But if Sue is a member of your immediate family, you might say, “There are 4 members of my family... And if so, why couldn’t we extend this to Sue’s barrista at Starbucks? The barrista could say, “I have had only 100 customers today, of whom one had a precognition-like experience”, which sounds fairly remarkable.

I actually think that there is a form of agent-centered evidence called intuition which isn't easily communicatable to other agents and can often prove fairly useful. However, that's not the issue I want to discuss today. Instead, I want to talk about reference classe...
Shed Wall Plans
by jefftk — 2020-09-06T22:20:05.048Z

Last week I wrote about

estimating whether
insulation was worth it for our shed if we're going to use it as a
home office. While I'm waiting for the carpenter to put a new roof on
it, I'm thinking through what finishing the walls would look like.

The Facebook
side of the discussion on the insulation post was very helpful,
and got me thinking about putting closed cell foam panels directly
against the concrete walls. Because it's both a vapor barrier and
efficient insulation it reduces the risk of condensation happening
between the concrete and the insulation.

I'm less sure about what comes next. Whatever I'm doing is not
structural, and there are a lot of trade-offs. All of the options
involve the layer of closed-cell foam directly against the concrete, but
then they vary on how they're finished. Standard options:

Build a 2x3 wall, then drywall. This gives room to run the
electrical, and wood to attach the drywall to. The wall would be
attached to the subfloor below and roof joists above. Nothing needs
to go through the foam to the concrete, and the wood framing makes
later work easier.

Build a 2x4 wall. Same advantages as a 2 x 3 wall, but now
there's enough space in the cavity that it could be insulated. I could
either use this for a larger amount of insulation total, or reduce the
thickness of the foam.(video
example)

Furring strips. Run strips of wood horizontally along the
wall, and attach them through the foam into the concrete. Then run a
second set vertically, 16 inches on center, to attach the drywall to.
There's room for electrical as long as you dig out a bit of the foam
for the boxes. (video
example).

Less conventional:

Verticals inside: Instead of using furring strips, put vertical
2x3s from floor to ceiling, 16 inches on center. Attach them a the top
and bottom (roof joists and subfloor). Attach the drywall to the
wood. Run the electrical through the ceiling, and then down into the
appropriate bay so you don't need to drill through any verticals.
Essentially the same as the furring strip solution, but without
needing to put fasteners through the foam into the concrete. This
seems better than the furring strip approach?

Verticals outside: Attach the drywall to the foam with
adhesive. Then instead of standard drywall joints, run 2x3s
vertically 48 inches on center. Electrical in conduit, attached to
the

...
Welcome to LessWrong Vilnius [Edit With Your Details]
by smartinosx — 2020-09-06T20:38:45.590Z

(The following are our suggestions for what kind of information is best to include in the welcome post of your group, feel free to replace them with whatever you think is best)

What kind of events does your group usually run? What does it usually do?

How frequently does your group organize events or meet?

Who would be a good fit for you group?

Should they have any particular skills or have done some specific background reading?
The ethics of breeding to kill
by George3d6 — 2020-09-06T20:12:00.519Z

Veganism, vegetarianism, and "ethical" farming seem to be gaining a lot of ground lately, which is something I find fascinatingly absurd.

In part, I think this comes from a felicitous style of reasoning that I outlined here.

But, in hindsight, I think a lot of people that consume meat don't have any foundation that backs up their choice of killing animals for food. So I think it's worth outlining one here.

First, let's get the two "main" arguments against killing animals for food and factory farming on the table:

The utilitarian argument - Farming animals for meat often causes more "suffering" than "joy" to the animals.

The normative argument - Breeding something in order to kill it is "wronger" than not having it live at all.

Second, I want to look at the kind of animals me (and presumably many people) would feel bad about killing or eating. I'm going to ignore cats and dogs here because there's too much baggage to take in due to the role they play in our society. But disregarding those, I think there are three categories:

Humans

Apes (potentially extending to all monkeys)

Cetaceans (whales & dolphins)

That's not to say we would eat all other types of animals, but if an Inuit tribesman would hand you a traditional dish made with seal or bever you might begrudgingly (or, in my case, happily) give it a go. However, you would probably refuse if that same tribesman handed you human or blue whale meat.

Why?

Hedonic Regression

Utilitarianism is a good ethics framework if you refuse to understand how a brain works. In the real world, suffering and joy aren't so clean cut. Animals adapt their "level of suffering" to their environment. If an animal is in a hostile land for a few months, and when you deprive it of water, that animal might feel equally bad as one that has lived in parades for the last few months but has just been deprived of a mating opportunity.

The world's happiness index can be a good showcase we humans experience this to some extent. Note, for example, how Saudi Arabia (a harsh and unequal Islamic theocratic monarchy that still practices beheading and crucifixion sprawling over an unforgiving desert) is overall "happier" than Spain... which, is Spain, it's so nice it's among the top 5 global destinations for for...
Ice
by Slimepriestess — 2020-09-06T18:30:07.677Z

What you’re looking at is a geological formation called Dry Falls, in the Sun Lakes-Dry Falls state park in my home state of Washington. The Dry Falls are a series of escarpments and cliffs near Grand Coulee, deep in Eastern Washington’s channelled scablands region. These are four hundred foot high cliffs in the middle of the desert, how did they get here? What secrets does this terrain hold? What can the strange rock formations and alien landscapes of eastern Washington state tell us about the future of our planet?

During the end of the last ice age, a massive amount of glacial ice in continental Europe and North America melted away. During the period from 25,000 to 10,000 years ago, the Laurentide, Cordilleran, and Fennoscandian ice sheets completely melted, leading to a 120 meter rise in the global sea level. The rise in sea levels from this melting is estimated to have averaged in at roughly one meter per century while being augmented by two intense periods of melting between 15,000 and 13,000 years ago, and between 11,000 and 9,000 years ago.

While the current consensus among paleoclimatologists is that this melting was relatively gradual and steady, occurring at a linear rate over the course of 15,000 years, there is some evidence beginning to surface both in our current ice sheets and in the geologic records on the last one, that a gradual and linear melting rate is not what we should expect to see going forward.

In this post, I’ll look at recent melting trends in Antarctica and Greenland as well as at paleoclimate data from ice and seabed cores to propose a model of continental ice sheet collapses as rapid and potentially cataclysmic historical events which we should be aware of as potentially civilization destabilizing. Most of our current population, our largest cities, and most of our power and industry facilities, are all located in low lying areas susceptible to coastal flooding. If the water levels rise at a rate faster than can be mitigated by a slow withdrawal from the coastline over the course of many decades and centuries, it could cripple human civilization and bring an end to our current way of life.

The first piece of evidence to note here is that the geologic record of the last ice age is littered with superfloods and seemingly cataclysmic sea level rise events. Water topped over earthen berms and flooded into lowlying areas, Doggerla...
Design thoughts for building a better kind of social space with many webs of trust
by mako yass — 2020-09-06T02:08:54.766Z
Link: https://makopool.com/better_space_with_wots.html

Principles for building a better kind of social network with webs of trust

Abstract

Discussion of the unrealized potential of webs of trust as a decentralized institution for appointing moderators and curators.

Webs of Trust seem to be applicable to improving almost every social network process, including comment moderation, content sorting, determining the visibility of backlinks and edits in a globally editable wikis, but the article focuses primarily on tagging systems: The appointment of curators of categories of content.

Why webs of trust work

A web of trust is a network of users endorsing other users.

If you tell a web of trust who you trust, you can then travel along and find out who they trust, and so on as far as you wish to go, and that will give you a large set of people who you can trust to some extent, by transitivity.

Webs of trust can scale up at an exponential rate, as each new user can immediately add more users (better, they can start issuing endorsements in their own network segment even before they're added). Wonderfully, despite that, webs of trust can also be pruned and weeded fairly easily: If a few bad endorsements do get made, and the newly empowered bad users start adding more bad users, we will be able to trace the source of badness back through the endorsement relations to the root causes, and pruning them away will also prune away everyone that came through them, directly or indirectly. Crucially, the pruning and weeding does not need to be carried out by a central authority. Every user is the center of their own web, they make their own moderation decisions, they can bring in anyone they like.

Webs of trust essentially are the delegation or sharing of moderation work.

Webs of trust are useful whenever we wish to track a quality that people can have, which comes with the ability to recognize the presence of that quality in others. Most personal qualities are self-recognizing, in this way, to some extent. A person who has it, faced with another person, can usually figure out whether they have it too.

Examples of such qualities include good taste, responsibility, or not a spambot.

Some non-examples would be is a spambot (spambots are mainly about spamming and are not very interested in identifying each other), or is a fool. A web of trust would not help with keeping track of these qualities, but, again, most qualities people talk about ar...