trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Anxiety and Rationality
by  — 2016-01-19T18:30:57.812Z

Recently, someone on the Facebook page asked if anyone had used rationality to target anxieties. I have, so I thought I’d share my LessWrong-inspired strategies. This is my first post, so feedback and formatting help are welcome.

First things first: the techniques developed by this community are not a panacea for mental illness. They are way more effective than chance and other tactics at reducing normal bias, and I think many mental illnesses are simply cognitive biases that are extreme enough to get noticed. In other words, getting a probability question about cancer systematically wrong does not disrupt my life enough to make the error obvious. When I believe (irrationally) that I will get fired because I asked for help at work, my life is disrupted. I become non-functional, and the error is clear.

Second: the best way to attack anxiety is to do the things that make your anxieties go away. That might seem too obvious to state, but I’ve definitely been caught in an “analysis loop,” where I stay up all night reading self-help guides only to find myself non-functional in the morning because I didn’t sleep. If you find that attacking an anxiety with Bayesian updating is like chopping down the Washington monument with a spoon, but getting a full night’s sleep makes the monument disappear completely, consider the sleep. Likewise for techniques that have little to no scientific evidence, but are a good placebo. A placebo effect is still an effect.

Finally, like all advice, this comes with Implicit Step Zero: “Have enough executive function to give this a try.” If you find yourself in an analysis loop, you may not yet have enough executive function to try any of the advice you read. The advice for functioning better is not always identical to the advice for functioning at all. If there’s interest in an “improving your executive function” post, I’ll write one eventually. It will be late, because my executive function is not impeccable.

Simple updating is my personal favorite for attacking specific anxieties. A general sense of impending doom is a very tricky target and does not respond well to reality. If you can narrow it down to a particular belief, however, you can amass evidence aga...
Extending the stated objectives
by Stuart_Armstrong — 2016-01-19T15:46:44.000Z

A putative new idea for AI control; index here.

A system that is optimizing a function of n variables, where the objective depends on a subset of size k<n, will often set the remaining unconstrained variables to extreme values; if one of those unconstrained variables is actually something we care about, the solution found may be highly undesirable.

Stuart Russell

Think of an AI directing a car, given the instructions to get someone to the airport as fast as possible (optimised variables include "negative of time taken to airport") with some key variables left out - such as a maximum speed, maximum acceleration, respect for traffic rules, and survival of the passengers and other humans.

Call these other variables "unstated objectives" (UO), as contrasted with the "stated objectives" (SO) such as the time to the airport. In the normal environments in which we operate and design our AIs, the UOs are either correlated with the SOs (consider the SO "their heart is beating" and the UO "they're alive and healthy") or don't change much at all (the car-directing AI could have been trained on many examples of driving-to-the-airport, none of which included the driver killing their passengers).

Typically, SOs are easy to define, and the UOs are the more important objectives, left undefined either because they are complex, or because they didn't occur to us in this context (just as we don't often say "driver, get me to the airport as fast a possible, but alive and not permanently harmed, if you please. Also, please obey the following regulations and restrictions: 1.a.i.α: Non-destruction of the Earth....").

The control problem, in a nutshell, is that optimising SOs will typically set other variables to extreme values, including the UOs. The more extreme the optimisation, and the furthest from the typical environment, the more likely this is to happen.

One of the ideas of reduced impact is to preserve the typical environment, so that the unchanging UOs are left unchanged and the correlation remains between the changing UOs and the changing SOs. I've had some ideas for optimisation that "doesn't optimise too much". Jessica Taylor has been formalising similar ideas; the idea for both is to preserve the connection between SOs and UOs by preserving certain assumptions about in the standard environment.

#Inverse Reinforcement Learning

But those methods are somewhat indirect. W

...
How did my baby die and what is the probability that my next one will?
by deprimita_patro — 2016-01-19T06:24:00.333Z

Summary: My son was stillborn and I don't know why. My wife and I would like to have another child, but would very much not like to try if the probability of this occurring again is above a certain threshold (of which we have already settled on one). All 3 doctors I have consulted were unable to give a definitive cause of death, nor were any willing to give a numerical estimate of the probability (whether for reasons of legal risk, or something else) that our next baby will be stillborn. I am likely too mind-killed to properly evaluate my situation and would very much appreciate an independent (from mine) probability estimate of what caused my son to die, and given that cause, what is the recurrence risk?

Background: V (L and my only biologically related living son) had no complications during birth, nor has he showed any signs of poor health whatsoever. L has a cousin who has had two miscarriages, and I have an aunt who had several stillbirths followed by 3 live births of healthy children. We know of no other family members that have had similar misfortunes.

J (my deceased son) was the product of a 31 week gestation. L (my wife and J's mother) is 28 years old, gravida 2, para 1. L presented to the physicians office for routine prenatal care and noted that she had not felt any fetal movement for the last five to six days. No fetal heart tones were identified. It was determined that there was an intrauterine fetal demise. L was admitted on 11/05/2015 for induction and was delivered of a nonviable, normal appearing, male fetus at approximately 1:30 on 11/06/2015.

Pro-Con Reasoning: According to a leading obstetrics textbook1, causes of stillbirth are commonly classified into 8 categories: obstetrical complications, placental abnormalities, fetal malformations, infection, umbilical cord abnormalities, hypertensive disorders, medical complications, and undetermined. Below, I'll list the percentage of stillbirths in each category (which may be used as prior probabilities) along with some reasons for or against.

Obstetrical complications (29%)

Against: No abruption detected. No multifetal gestation. No ruptured preterm membranes at 20-24 weeks.

Placental abnormalities (24%)

For: Excessive fibrin deposition (as concluded in the surgical pathology report). Early acute chorioamnionitis (as conclused in the surgical pathology report, but Dr. M claimed this was caused b

...
Meetup : MelbLW Social Meetup: Jan 2016
by Maelin — 2016-01-18T14:48:19.052Z

Discussion article for the meetup : MelbLW Social Meetup: Jan 2016

WHEN:
22 January 2016 06:30:00PM (+1100)

WHERE:
Bull and Bear Tavern, 347 Flinders Lane, Melbourne VIC 3000

Come along for the first Less Wrong Melbourne social meetup of 2016!

(Facebook event link: https://www.facebook.com/events/1672719669642952/ )

MelbLW's social meetups usually run on the third Friday of each month (this month is an exception). They are casual get-togethers where we chat about topics of interest over a couple of drinks. Some groups will often play games as well.

Where? The Bull & Bear Tavern, 347 Flinders Ln, Melbourne VIC 3000

When? From 6:30pm on Friday 22nd. Feel free to show up later, though. We typically stay at the main venue until about 11pm.

Dinner? The Bull & Bear serve decent pub food and we usually get some wedges etc to share. If you would like to wait, we usually go out for dinner/supper afterwards. This month we might try a new, different venue for our after-meetup meal!

Games? Feel free to bring a game along if you'd like to play!

Contact? Any questions or issues, contact Richard on 0421231789

Hope to see you there!

Discussion article for the meetup : MelbLW Social Meetup: Jan 2016
Open thread, Jan. 18 - Jan. 24, 2016
by MrMind — 2016-01-18T09:42:47.158Z

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)

3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.

4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.
Meetup : LW Cologne meetup
by EGI — 2016-01-17T22:04:19.753Z

Discussion article for the meetup : LW Cologne meetup

WHEN:
23 January 2016 05:00:00PM (+0100)

WHERE:
Marienweg 43, 50858 Köln

Next meetup is Jan 23rd 2016, Marienweg 43, 50858 Köln at 5 pm. If you want to attend and did not sign up in our Doodle please notify my via PM.

Discussion article for the meetup : LW Cologne meetup
"Why Optimize?" Essay targeted at nonrationalist friends of mine
by  — 2016-01-17T19:15:10.280Z

Hello everyone,

I've been trying to write some essays for friends, designed to introduce them to some rationalist ideas on a personal blog. I thought I might be able to post a few here to get some feedback on what I'm doing right/wrong so I can better get the main ideas across.

This is a new project, so I only have a few essays (in differing levels of completion).

This is one that is completed:

" Hello,

Before we start talking about motivational skills, I’d like to set a few fundamentals down so everything makes sense. Concepts and ideas are often much clearer in our heads than what we actually say *1, so for the this week and the next week I’ll be writing about two building-block ideas, and then we’ll get into a few techniques.

(My apologies if this seems slow– I’d like to make sure everything makes sense for readers new to all this, so if you’ve already been exposed to general rationalist ideas, you can probably just wait until the techniques start showing up for some potentially novel content.)

Today we’re talking about optimization. This is a term that comes up a lot in both math and economics, but we’re using it here to mean “finding the best way of doing things”.

By “best” I mean faster and better.

Personally, I believe mapping things out, writing things down, and general planning skills are super helpful. We’ll explore all those ideas eventually, but the point is that I find that these utilizing these skills allows me to optimize my task completion process– not only do I finish in less time, but the quality of work is also improved.

Most of us don’t do this type of breakdown, I don’t think. Sure, we’ll write down what we have to get done, but I don’t believe most people will consistently assess their goals and break down their tasks, with outlines and mapping.

However, I think we can all benefit from trying to optimize our tasks, be it through planning or finding a better method.

Why try something different, though? Isn’t it fine that most of us go through life on a more spontaneous basis? Can’t we do things as we think of them?

I don’t believe this is too great. Consider our finite day:

There are lots of things we can do. We can separate these actions into “f...
Thinking About a Technical Solution to Coordination Problems
by ChaosMote — 2016-01-17T07:16:28.852Z

I was just reading an article online, and one of the comments mentioned a political issue (the legality of corporate contributions to political campaigns). One of the responses what a comment saying "Not until we abandon this mentality, we the victims are the majority, we can take back this country, all we need to do is open our eyes and stand up." When I saw this comment, I agreed with the sentiment - but nevertheless, I shrugged and moved on. Sure, it is an issue that I strongly believe in, and an issue on which I thought most people would agree with me - but nevertheless, there was nothing I could do about it. Sure, if everyone who agreed on this took a stand (or at least wrote a letter to their congressional representative) we could probably do something about it together - but I could only control my own actions, and in acting alone I'd only be wasting my time.

That got me thinking. This isn't the first time I've come across these sorts of issues. At its heart, this is a coordination problem - lots of people want to do something, but it doesn't make sense for any individual to act unless many others do as well. We don't have a way to solve these sorts of problems, which is quite unfortunate. Except... why can't we have such a system?

Right now, I'm imagining a website where you get to create "causes" and also add your name to them along with a number specifying how many other supporters you'd need to see before you would be willing to take (a pre-specified) action towards the cause. What are the reasons that something like this wouldn't work?

I fact, we do have several websites that work sort-of like this already. Kickstarter is one. The White House Petitions system is another. The first of these has been a wild success; the second, less so (as far as I understand it). So there is clearly some merit to the idea, but also some major setbacks.

What do people think of this?
Meetup : Cambridge Less Wrong: Tutoring Wheels
by jimrandomh — 2016-01-17T05:23:05.303Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Cambridge Less Wrong: Tutoring Wheels

WHEN:
17 January 2016 03:30:00PM (-0500)

WHERE:
98 Elm St Apt 1 Somerville, MA

This Sunday's Cambridge Less Wrong meetup will feature a tutoring wheel. We'll start with a brief discussion on the art of tutoring well, then divide into groups by topic. (Topics will be selected during the meetup based on what people are interested in). The tutoring wheel is a structure where we then go on to alternate between one-on-one conversations, and larger conversations where we discuss how the earlier conversations went, with the goal of getting better at learning and helping each other learn.

The meetup is at Citadel, a house at: 98 Elm St Apt 1 Somerville, MA. The meetup starts at 3:30, and the structured portion starts at 4:00.

Discussion article for the meetup : Cambridge Less Wrong: Tutoring Wheels
Confidence all the way up
by So8res — 2016-01-17T02:00:00.000Z
Link: https://mindingourway.com/confidence-all-the-way-up/

I apparently possess some sort of aura of competence. Some say I'm confident, others say I'm arrogant, others remark on how I seem very certain of myself (which I have been told both as compliment and critique).

I was surprised, at first, by these remarks from friends and family — from my perspective, I'm usually the first person in the conversation to express uncertainty in the form of probability estimates and error bars. I'm often quick to brainstorm alternative explanations of the data I use to support my claims. And, of course, I'm certain of nothing.

In fact, I had a conversation with a friend about this phenomenon once, which went something like this:

Me: Hey, have you noticed how everyone thinks I have an aura of confidence and certainty, sometimes arrogance? I don't know how to shake it, nor how it works. What's up with that?

Him: Well, you always seem to have a solid grasp on every situation. When you're explaining things, you answer questions quickly, deftly, and with precision.

Me: I don't think that's it, though. I'm rarely confident in the claims I'm making, and I tend to highlight that fact. Earlier, when we were talking with [other friend] about tools society can use to break monopolies, I was very explicit about where my uncertainty lies, and what assumptions my models relied upon, and where they might be flawed.

Him: Yeah, but even then you were confident in what you were saying — maybe not confident in any particular claim you made, but confident in your overall analysis.

Me: I don't think that's it either. I'll be the first to admit that the probabilities I put on my propositions are pulled out of thin air, and I'll also be the first to admit that my hypothesis space is decrepit and that I'd be able to find better models if I could think better. In fact, I'm aware of a bunch of flaws in the ways I think, and I dedicate a decent amount of effort to improving my own reasoning methods.

Him: …

Me: … I'm doing the thing right now, aren't I?

Him: Yes, yes you are.

There definitely is something of "confidence" to this pattern of speech and thinking, but it's not an empirical confidence. The confidence people notice in me isn't in the content of my claims, for I'm quick to couch my claims with probability estimates and error bars. Most of the confidence isn't in my analysis, either; I'm quick to note the ways my analyses could be flawed.

Some of the confiden...
To contribute to AI safety, consider doing AI research
by Vika — 2016-01-16T20:42:36.107Z

Among those concerned about risks from advanced AI, I've encountered people who would be interested in a career in AI research, but are worried that doing so would speed up AI capability relative to safety. I think it is a mistake for AI safety proponents to avoid going into the field for this reason (better reasons include being well-positioned to do AI safety work, e.g. at MIRI or FHI). This mistake contributed to me choosing statistics rather than computer science for my PhD, which I have some regrets about, though luckily there is enough overlap between the two fields that I can work on machine learning anyway. I think the value of having more AI experts who are worried about AI safety is far higher than the downside of adding a few drops to the ocean of people trying to advance AI. Here are several reasons for this:

Concerned researchers can inform and influence their colleagues, especially if they are outspoken about their views.

Studying and working on AI brings understanding of the current challenges and breakthroughs in the field, which can usefully inform AI safety work (e.g. wireheading in reinforcement learning agents).

Opportunities to work on AI safety are beginning to spring up within academia and industry, e.g. through FLI grants. In the next few years, it will be possible to do an AI-safety-focused PhD or postdoc in computer science, which would hit two birds with one stone.

To elaborate on #1, one of the prevailing arguments against taking long-term AI safety seriously is that not enough experts in the AI field are worried. Several prominent researchers have commented on the potential risks (Stuart Russell, Bart Selman, Murray Shanahan, Shane Legg, and others), and more are concerned but keep quiet for reputational reasons. An accomplished, strategically outspoken and/or well-connected expert can make a big difference in the attitude distribution in the AI field and the level of familiarity with the actual concerns (which are not about malevolence, sentience, or marching robot armies). Having more informed skeptics who have maybe even read Superintelligence, and fewer uninformed skeptics who think AI safety proponents are afraid of Terminators, would produce much needed direct and productive discussion on these issues. As the proportion of informed and concerned researchers in the field approaches critical mass, the reputational consequen...
Meetup : Games in Kocherga club: FallacyMania, Tower of Chaos, Training game
by Alexander230 — 2016-01-16T10:11:51.596Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Games in Kocherga club: FallacyMania, Tower of Chaos, Training game

WHEN:
20 January 2016 07:40:00PM (+0300)

WHERE:
Moscow, B.Dorogomilovskaya, 5-2

Welcome to Moscow LW community makeshift games! In that games, some rationality skills are involved, so you can practise while you playing!

FallacyMania: it is a game where you guess logical fallacies in arguments, or practise using logical fallacies yourself (depending on team in which you will be).

Details about the game are here: https://lesswrong-ru.hackpad.com/Fallacymania--neGfMe9MFjH

Tower of Chaos: funny game with guessing the rules of human placement on a Twister mat.

Details about the game are here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzyKVqP6n3hKSGJpbTFVWlE0Z3M/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzyKVqP6n3hKckJ5ZWZ5Q3VrWFE/view?usp=sharing

Training game: all players try to train the subject to guess and make some action without words, using only positive reinforcement.

Come to antikafe "Kocherga", ul.B.Dorogomilovskaya, 5-2. The map is here: http://kocherga-club.ru/#contacts . Nearest metro station is Kievskaya. If you are lost, call Sasha at +7-905-527-30-82.

Games begin at 19:40, the length is 2.5-3 hours.

Discussion article for the meetup : Games in Kocherga club: FallacyMania, Tower of Chaos, Training game
Meetup : Less Wrong NH Meetup
by Tuk — 2016-01-16T03:49:26.261Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Less Wrong NH Meetup

WHEN:
26 January 2016 07:00:00PM (-0500)

WHERE:
269 Pearl St Manchester NH 03104

The eleventh NH meet-up is Tuesday, 1/26, in Manchester, NH at 7 pm at a private residence. Light refreshments will be provided.

Have you read Rationality: from AI to Zombies, or any of the Sequences on Less Wrong? Maybe you're just a fan of Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality. Come hang out with us and discuss optimization of whatever it is you want to optimize.

Agenda: TBD

You may want to bring a notebook.

https://www.facebook.com/events/1071969106166728/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/695201067251306/

Discussion article for the meetup : Less Wrong NH Meetup
The correct response to uncertainty is *not* half-speed
by AnnaSalamon — 2016-01-15T22:55:03.407Z

Related to: Half-assing it with everything you've got; Wasted motion; Say it Loud.

Once upon a time (true story), I was on my way to a hotel in a new city. I knew the hotel was many miles down this long, branchless road. So I drove for a long while.

After a while, I began to worry I had passed the hotel.

So, instead of proceeding at 60 miles per hour the way I had been, I continued in the same direction for several more minutes at 30 miles per hour, wondering if I should keep going or turn around.

After a while, I realized: I was being silly! If the hotel was ahead of me, I'd get there fastest if I kept going 60mph. And if the hotel was behind me, I'd get there fastest by heading at 60 miles per hour in the other direction. And if I wasn't going to turn around yet -- if my best bet given the uncertainty was to check N more miles of highway first, before I turned around -- then, again, I'd get there fastest by choosing a value of N, speeding along at 60 miles per hour until my odometer said I'd gone N miles, and then turning around and heading at 60 miles per hour in the opposite direction.

Either way, fullspeed was best. My mind had been naively averaging two courses of action -- the thought was something like: "maybe I should go forward, and maybe I should go backward. So, since I'm uncertain, I should go forward at half-speed!" But averages don't actually work that way.[1]

Following this, I started noticing lots of hotels in my life (and, perhaps less tactfully, in my friends' lives). For example:

I wasn't sure if I was a good enough writer to write a given doc myself, or if I should try to outsource it. So, I sat there kind-of-writing it while also fretting about whether the task was correct.

(Solution: Take a minute out to think through heuristics. Then, either: (1) write the post at full speed; or (2) try to outsource it; or (3) write full force for some fixed time period, and then pause and evaluate.)

I wasn't sure (back in early 2012) that CFAR was worthwhile. So, I kind-of worked on it.

An old friend came to my door unexpectedly, and I was tempted to hang out with her, but I also thought I should finish my work. So I kind-of hung out with her while feeling bad and distracted about my work.

A friend of mine, when te

...