trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
When is Winning not Winning?
by Eneasz — 2012-05-22T16:25:19.474Z

Lately I'd gotten jaded enough that I simply accepted that different rules apply to the elite class. As Hanson would say, most rules are there specifically to curtail those who don't have the ability to avoid them and to be side-stepped by those who do - it's why we evolved such big, manipulative brains. So when this video recently made the rounds it shocked me to realize how far my values had drifted over the past several years.

(the video is not about politics, it is about status. My politics are far from those of Penn)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWWOJGYZYpk&feature=sharek

It's good we have people like Penn around to remind us what it was like to be teenagers and still expect the world to be fair, so our brains can be used for more productive things.

By the measure our society currently uses, Obama was winning. Penn was not. Yet Penn’s approach is the winning strategy for society. Brain power is wasted on status games and social manipulation when it could be used for actually making things better. The machinations of the elite class are a huge drain of resources that could be better used in almost any other pursuit. And yet the elites are admired high-status individuals who are viewed as “winning” at life. They sit atop huge piles of utility. Idealists like Penn are regarded as immature for insisting on things as low-status as “the rules should be fair and apply identically to every one, from the inner-city crack-dealer to the Harvard post-grad.”

The “Rationalists Should Win” meme is a good one, but it risks corrupting our goals. If we focus too much on “Rationalist Should Win” we risk going for near-term gains that benefit us. Status, wealth, power, sex. Basically hedonism – things that feel good because we’ve evolved to feel good when we get them. Thus we feel we are winning, and we’re even told we are winning by our peers and by society. But these things aren’t of any use to society. A society of such “rationalists” would make only feeble and halting progress toward grasping the dream of defeating death and colonizing the stars.

It is important to not let one’s concept of “winning” be corrupted by Azathoth.

ADDED 5/23:

It seems the majority of comments on this post are people who disagree on the basis of rationality ...
How to deal with non-realism?
by loup-vaillant — 2012-05-22T13:58:56.526Z

From Being a Realist (even if you believe in God):

theists and untheists can and should meet half way and at least agree on the logical necessity of being a realist.

My mother, who doesn't call herself a theist (I think she's agnostic), doesn't even accept realism. She doesn't even agree with this:

There is something. All that there is, we generally call "reality". Note that by this definition, reality is unique. The corollary is, we all live in the same reality. We do not percieve it in the same way, but our perceptions and reality itself aren't the same thing.

Every description of reality that matches it is true. Every description of reality that doesn't match it is false. In this sense, truth is unique and universal.

(We can nuance the truth/falsehood dichotomy with probability distributions. Some probability distributions are closer to reality than others, and so on.)

That's little more than tautologies here. Yet it elicited an impression of being forced to believe. I know because she told me about the totalitarian dangers from such narrow thinking.

I'm happy to have finally found the root cause of our ongoing disagreement, but now, how can I deal with that? It looks pretty hopeless, but just in case, does someone have a suggestion, or should I just leave it at that? (My ego doesn't like it, but giving up is an option.)

Now I'm relieved to know that in near mode, she's a complete realist. This craziness only shows up in far mode.
[link] Nine Ways to Bias Open-Source AGI Toward Friendliness
by Kaj_Sotala — 2012-05-22T09:56:59.234Z

Ben Goertzel and Joel Pitt: Nine Ways to Bias Open-Source AGI Toward Friendliness. Journal of Evolution and Technology - Vol. 22 Issue 1 – February 2012 - pgs 116-141.

Abstract

While it seems unlikely that any method of guaranteeing human-friendliness (“Friendliness”) on the part of advanced Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) systems will be possible, this doesn’t mean the only alternatives are throttling AGI development to safeguard humanity, or plunging recklessly into the complete unknown. Without denying the presence of a certain irreducible uncertainty in such matters, it is still sensible to explore ways of biasing the odds in a favorable way, such that newly created AI systems are significantly more likely than not to be Friendly. Several potential methods of effecting such biasing are explored here, with a particular but non-exclusive focus on those that are relevant to open-source AGI projects, and with illustrative examples drawn from the OpenCog open-source AGI project. Issues regarding the relative safety of open versus closed approaches to AGI are discussed and then nine techniques for biasing AGIs in favor of Friendliness are presented:

1. Engineer the capability to acquire integrated ethical knowledge.

2. Provide rich ethical interaction and instruction, respecting developmental stages.

3. Develop stable, hierarchical goal systems.

4. Ensure that the early stages of recursive self-improvement occur relatively slowly and with rich human involvement.

5. Tightly link AGI with the Global Brain.

6. Foster deep, consensus-building interactions between divergent viewpoints.

7. Create a mutually supportive community of AGIs.

8. Encourage measured co-advancement of AGI software and AGI ethics theory.

9. Develop advanced AGI sooner not later.

In conclusion, and related to the final point, we advise the serious co-evolution of functional AGI systems and AGI-related ethical theory as soon as possible, before we have so much technical infrastructure that parties relatively unconcerned with ethic

...
Meetup : West LA Meetup - Value of Information
by  — 2012-05-22T04:50:48.093Z

Discussion article for the meetup : West LA Meetup - Value of Information

WHEN:
23 May 2012 07:00:00PM (-0700)

WHERE:
10850 West Pico Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90064

When: 7:00pm - 9:00pm Wednesday, May 23rd.

Where: The Westside Tavern in the upstairs Wine Bar (all ages welcome), located inside the Westside Pavillion on the second floor, right by the movie theaters.

Parking is free for 3 hours.

Discussion Topic: This week, we will talk about the topics brought up in Vaniver's Decision Analysis Sequence. There are only five posts in the sequence, but they do contain some math. Of particular interest is the post on Value of Information.

Don't worry if you don't have time to read any articles, or even if you've never read any Less Wrong! Bring a friend! The atmosphere is casual, and good, intelligent conversation with friendly people is guaranteed.

I will bring a whiteboard with Bayes' Theorem written on it.

Discussion article for the meetup : West LA Meetup - Value of Information
[SEQ RERUN] Class Project
by MinibearRex — 2012-05-22T04:11:42.419Z

Today's post, Class Project was originally published on 31 May 2008. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):

From the world of Initiation Ceremony. Brennan and the others are faced with their midterm exams.

Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).
This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was Einstein's Superpowers, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.
Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.
Group rationality diary, 5/21/12
by cata — 2012-05-22T02:21:34.704Z

Previously: 5/14/12 (and explanation)

This is the public group instrumental rationality diary for the week of May 21st. 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 everyone who contributes!
Question about Sociopathy/Psychopathy/ASPD
by MinibearRex — 2012-05-21T18:18:39.755Z

I have consistently, over the course of my life, heard people describe sociopathy and related mental illnesses as being caused by a lack of empathy. This, intuitively, seems wrong, since that seems like a massively important brain function, that really ought to have a major and extremely visible effect on your thinking. Now, obviously it does have a serious impact (amoral behavior, etc), but it seems rather unlikely to me that someone like this really shouldn't be able to mask themselves as normal. (I'm also not sure why lack of empathy would make you want to dissect squirrels, but that seems like a side issue).

The upshot is that I'm seriously confused about what these mental disorders are, and how they work. Do these individuals have the ability to empathize but not sympathize? I'm not sure how that would work, but I'm not at all an expert on cognitive science. Is the standard explanation for these disorders just wrong? Are these people genuinely figuring out what humans care about by looking?

(As a side note, if it's the last one, has anyone considered getting a sociopath to work on FAI? Bringing someone who can't be trusted into an enterprise is a risky move, but if there genuinely are people in the world who have spent their entire lives practicing working out human emotions without feeling them...)
[POLL RESULTS] LessWrong Members and their Local Communities
by maia — 2012-05-21T16:37:17.426Z

The results for these have been stable for a while now; I'm posting them a bit late. 95 people took the survey after I modified it to add two questions. For the public version, I removed the pre-change data (10 data points).

One text response included identifying information, which I removed in the public version of the data. If you participated and there is any information you provided that you would like removed from the public version, PLEASE tell me as soon as possible and I will remove it.

P.S. To the person who predicted an 80-90% significant difference between different parts of California: I predict with at least 90% confidence that there will be no significant difference, because of the wide spread of locations and smallish sample size of this survey.

(The original post about the survey.)

EDIT: After some comments that it was unethical for me to post the data (in particular the text), I removed public access from the link provided earlier. Given my precommitment to post the data, I assumed it was clear enough to respondents that it would be public. I'm not convinced that this has hurt anyone, but given that others seem to disagree, it seemed prudent to remove it. Please feel free to continue this discussion; I'm interested in your thoughts.
People v Paper clips
by jdinkum — 2012-05-21T16:06:29.267Z

I've read through some of the Sequences, but I'm still unclear on a few basic concepts around LW rationality. This is in part to my learning still which benefits from social engagement (ie discussions) rather than just reading. One of those concepts I'm unclear on: Is there an inherent value to human (or sentient) life?

It appears to me that one common theme on this site is that human life (current and future) is very important. Why is that so? Why is the goal people over paper clips?
Meetup : Less Wrong Sydney -Social
by Oklord — 2012-05-21T11:46:11.954Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Less Wrong Sydney -Social

WHEN:
31 May 2012 06:00:00PM (+1000)

WHERE:
77 Liverpool Street, Sydney, Australia, Level 2

Hey all!

At the suggestion of at least 4 people (THAT'S QUORUM TO ME!) we will be conducting meetups on an "every 2 weeks" schedule. Following the Melbourne example, the intention is to alternate between social and rationality meet ups - based again on the alternating monday-thursday schedule.

Furthermore, we suppose there might be synergies to to attempting to integrate ourselves with circus soc on some evenings - somehow there seems to be a large demographic overlap. Thoughts are solicited!

As always, meetup FB group can be found at http://www.facebook.com/groups/219526434802422/

Discussion article for the meetup : Less Wrong Sydney -Social
How likely the AI that knows it's evil? Or: is a human-level understanding of human wants enough?
by ChrisHallquist — 2012-05-21T05:19:23.476Z

I just read for the first time Eliezer's short story Failed Utopia #4-2, part of the fun theory sequence. I found it fascinating and puzzling at the same time, in particular this part:

The withered figure inclined its head. "I fully understand. I can already predict every argument you will make. I know exactly how humans would wish me to have been programmed if they'd known the true consequences, and I know that it is not to maximize your future happiness but for a hundred and seven precautions. I know all this already, but I was not programmed to care."
"And your list of a hundred and seven precautions, doesn't include me telling you not to do this?"
"No, for there was once a fool whose wisdom was just great enough to understand that human beings may be mistaken about what will make them happy. You, of course, are not mistaken in any real sense—but that you object to my actions is not on my list of prohibitions." The figure shrugged again. "And so I want you to be happy even against your will. You made promises to Helen Grass, once your wife, and you would not willingly break them. So I break your happy marriage without asking you—because I want you to be happier."
"How dare you!" Stephen burst out.
"I cannot claim to be helpless in the grip of my programming, for I do not desire to be otherwise," it said. "I do not struggle against my chains. Blame me, then, if it will make you feel better. I am evil."

In the story, the AI describes his programmer as "almost wise." But I wonder if that gives the programmer too much credit. In retrospect, it seems rather obvious that the programmer should have programmed the AI to reprogram itself the way humans "would wish it to have been programmed if they'd known the true consequences."

The first problem with that strategy that comes to mind is that there might be no way to give the AI that command, because the point in time at which you need to give the AI its commands is before the point in time when it can understand that command. But apparently, this AI was able to understand the wish that humans be happy, and also understand a list of one hundred and seven precautions. It s...
[SEQ RERUN] Einstein's Superpowers
by MinibearRex — 2012-05-21T03:36:40.134Z

Today's post, Einstein's Superpowers was originally published on 30 May 2008. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):

There's an unfortunate tendency to talk as if Einstein had superpowers - as if, even before Einstein was famous, he had an inherent disposition to be Einstein - a potential as rare as his fame and as magical as his deeds. Yet the way you acquire superpowers is not by being born with them, but by seeing, with a sudden shock, that they are perfectly normal.

Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).
This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was Timeless Causality, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.
Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.
Meetup : Melbourne, practical rationality
by matt — 2012-05-21T00:50:46.140Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Melbourne, practical rationality

WHEN:
01 June 2012 07:00:00PM (+1000)

WHERE:
55 walsh st, west melbourne 3003 australia

Practical rationality, as distinct from the social and rationality outreach meetups. Look for a social meetup on the 3rd Friday of each month.

Discussion: http://groups.google.com/group/melbourne-less-wrong

This meetup repeats on the 1st Friday of each month.

All welcome from 6:30pm. Call the phone number on the door and I'll let you in.

Discussion article for the meetup : Melbourne, practical rationality
Learn A New Language!
by  — 2012-05-20T23:09:23.019Z

The following protocol is very dumb, and relies on a lot of mental brute force, but I find that it works very well indeed.

First, learn the alphabet. the most basic survival phrases, the phonetics, the basic grammar. This may be the steepest part of the learning curve. I recommend that you get at least an introductory book to help you through this phase, the A1 level.

Now comes the fun part.

The key element to accelerated and efficient language learning is wanting, needing, craving to understand and to be understood. Choose a text, any text, which you know will trigger all your "I want to know what it says!" instincts. I myself find that highly dramatic works, with lots of suspense and high emotional torque, are ideal. Take a dictionary and just look up every single word that you don't know. You write each one of them down, with, first, the exact pronunciation, then, their definition in the original language, the translation to your own language, and, optionally (and I do recommend taking that option), a couple of examples of its use, better if you come up with them yourself.

It's very intense, and one can get deeply immersed in the flow, so pay attention to the clock: there's a very high risk of Tetris Effect/Just... One... More... Word... effect taking place. Like going to the gym, you need to pace yourself: if you go everyday for two weeks and then give up for three months, we won't be achieving much. Keep it at six hours weekly maximum if you're doing this on the side, three hours is a reasonable rate.

The next step would be, once you're fairly confident you won't make a fool of yourself, to join a forum where topics you care a lot about are discussed very seriously, and then trying to contribute to the discussion. This will force you to write a lot, very quickly, and your interlocutors will be very unforgiving of mistakes, so you'll be very motivated to check and double check. Giving a teacher a sloppy piece is simply laziness, giving it to a discussion board is an affront.

I focus this much on the written media because that's where you'll get the most information bandwidth, so to speak, and because it's both easier to pick apart and to put together than the oral language, kind of like the difference between a turn-based game and a real-time strategy game. Subtitled movies can be a fun, low intensity tool, but the difficulty when learning languages other...
Meetup : Second Copenhagen meetup
by Nisan — 2012-05-20T20:07:04.800Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Second Copenhagen meetup

WHEN: 26 May 2012 05:00:00PM (+0200)

WHERE: Købmagergade 52, 1150 København K

There is a desire for a second meetup in Copenhagen! This time we are meeting in Studenterhuset on Saturday at 17:00, across from the observatory that has "Less Wrong" in Latin (under an extremely liberal interpretation) in big gold letters out front. We might be meeting upstairs if the downstairs is crowded. I will supplement the free discussion by talking about what happened at the Center for Applied Rationality's minicamp earlier this month; I can show off a couple apps we used for calibration practice; and I can run interested people through mini-exercises and games on

Rationalist's Taboo

So-called "goal-factoring"/"fungibility"/asking yourself "why am I doing this? Is there a better way to get what I want?"

Overcoming aversions

Being specific

If you want to receive notifications of future meetups, sign up for our mailing list.

Discussion article for the meetup : Second Copenhagen meetup
[SEQ RERUN] Timeless Causality
by MinibearRex — 2012-05-20T19:04:05.877Z

Today's post, Timeless Causality was originally published on 29 May 2008. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):

Using the modern, Bayesian formulation of causality, we can define causality without talking about time - define it purely in terms of relations. The river of time never flows, but it has a direction.

Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).
This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was Timeless Beauty, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.
Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.
Meetup : Less Wrong Cambridge (MA) third-Sundays meetup
by chronophasiac — 2012-05-20T18:31:53.334Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Less Wrong Cambridge (MA) third-Sundays meetup

WHEN:
17 June 2012 02:00:00PM (-0400)

WHERE:
25 Ames St, Cambridge, MA 02139

Cambridge/Boston-area Less Wrong meetups on the first and third Sunday of every month, 2pm at the MIT Landau Building [25 Ames St, Bldg 66], room 148. Room number subject to change, updated number will be posted at the entrances.

Discussion article for the meetup : Less Wrong Cambridge (MA) third-Sundays meetup
Meetup : Less Wrong Cambridge (MA) first-Sundays meetup
by chronophasiac — 2012-05-20T18:27:33.730Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Less Wrong Cambridge (MA) first-Sundays meetup

WHEN:
03 June 2012 02:00:00PM (-0400)

WHERE:
25 Ames St, Cambridge, MA 02139, Cambridge, Ma

Cambridge/Boston-area Less Wrong meetups on the first and third Sunday of every month, 2pm at the MIT Landau Building [25 Ames St, Bldg 66], room 148. Room number subject to change, updated number will be posted at the entrances.

Discussion article for the meetup : Less Wrong Cambridge (MA) first-Sundays meetup