trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Meetup : Moscow meetup: phenomenological analysis, methods of creativity, lightning talks
by Slava Matyukhin — 2015-02-26T12:44:50.656Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Moscow meetup: phenomenological analysis, methods of creativity, lightning talks

WHEN:
01 March 2015 02:00:00PM (+0300)

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

This Sunday, at our usual place and time, we have the following activities planned:

5-minute talks:

SD on the model of decision making;

Max on CBT and traces of automatic thoughts in written texts.

Pion will explain phenomenological analysis, and then we will have our usual belief investigation practice.

Tanya will describe various creativity techniques and conduct the practice session using them.

Details are in the hackpad: https://lesswrong-ru.hackpad.com/-1-2015-uenk54vWVrC

Info for newcomers:
We gather in the Yandex office, first revolving door is on the right from the archway, entrance 8.1. Here is a guide how to get to Yandex: http://company.yandex.ru/contacts/redrose/. If you're late, send me an SMS at +7(926)313-96-42; you'll have to wait until I'm free to go down and meet you (which might take a while, I'm often busy with coordinating other stuff at the meetup). Expected duration of the meetup is 4-5 hours.

If you're not the member of our Moscow community yet, you might want to check out https://lesswrong-ru.hackpad.com/, there's a lot of content about what's been going on for the last two years.
Also, please subscribe to our mailing list.

Discussion article for the meetup : Moscow meetup: phenomenological analysis, methods of creativity, lightning talks
If you can see the box, you can open the box
by ThePrussian — 2015-02-26T10:36:16.833Z

First post here, and I'm disagreeing with something in the main sequences. Hubris acknowledged, here's what I've been thinking about. It comes from the post "Are your enemies innately evil?":

On September 11th, 2001, nineteen Muslim males hijacked four jet airliners in a deliberately suicidal effort to hurt the United States of America. Now why do you suppose they might have done that? Because they saw the USA as a beacon of freedom to the world, but were born with a mutant disposition that made them hate freedom?

Realistically, most people don't construct their life stories with themselves as the villains. Everyone is the hero of their own story. The Enemy's story, as seen by the Enemy, is not going to make the Enemy look bad. If you try to construe motivations that would make the Enemy look bad, you'll end up flat wrong about what actually goes on in the Enemy's mind.

If I'm misreading this, please correct me, but the way I am reading this is:

1) People do not construct their stories so that they are the villains,

therefore

2) the idea that Al Qaeda is motivated by a hatred of American freedom is false.

Reading the Al Qaeda document released after the attacks called Why We Are Fighting You you find the following:

What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

1. The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

A. The religion of tahwid; of freedom from associating partners with Allah Most High , and rejection of such blasphemy; of complete love for Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to his sharia; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories, and religions that contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad. Islam is the religion of all the prophets and makes no distinction between them.

It is to this religion that we call you …

2. The second thing we call you to is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

A. We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honor and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling and usury.

We call you to all of this that you may be freed from the deceptive lies that you are a great nation, which your leaders spread among you in order to conceal from you the despica

...
"Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning" - computer learns 49 different games
by skeptical_lurker — 2015-02-26T06:21:33.036Z

full text

This seems like an impressive first step towards AGI. The games, like 'pong' and 'space invaders' are perhaps not the most cerebral games, but given that deep blue can only play chess, this is far more impressive IMO. They didn't even need to adjust hyperparameters between games.

I'd also like to see whether they can train a network that plays the same game on different maps without re-training, which seems a lot harder.
Meetup : Washington, D.C.: What If Scenarios
by RobinZ — 2015-02-26T01:42:46.821Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Washington, D.C.: What If Scenarios

WHEN:
01 March 2015 03:00:00PM (-0500)

WHERE:
Reynolds Center

We will be meeting in the Kogod Courtyard of the Donald W. Reynolds Center for American Art and Portraiture (8th and F Sts or 8th and G Sts NW, go straight past the information desk from either entrance) to discuss interesting hypothetical scenarios. As usual, we will congregate between 3:00 and 3:30 and begin at 3:30.

The goal of this meetup is to have free-flowing conversations about what would happen, and what people should do, under one or more counterfactual sets of circumstances. As with prior informal-discussion meetups, conversation on any subject of interest to attendees (be it in the main conversation or in a side conversation) is both permitted and encouraged, but we suggest taking advantage of the meetup topic as a Schelling point.

The Greenbelt station on the Green Line will be closed for maintenance; most other lines will be running at reduced frequencies to accommodate single-tracking. The Verizon Center schedule for March 1 has a Capitals game at 7:00 p.m.; doors open at 6:00 p.m.

Upcoming meetups:

Mar. 8: Fun & Games (w/Nomic) (bring games, play games, converse, socialize, or any combination thereof)

Mar. 15: Mini Talks (short lectures on random subjects by random attendees)

Discussion article for the meetup : Washington, D.C.: What If Scenarios
Are Cognitive Biases Design Flaws?
by  — 2015-02-25T21:02:23.682Z

I am a newbie so today I read the article by Eliezer Yudkowski "Your Strength As A Rationalist" which helped me understand the focus of LessWrong, but I respectfully disagreed with a line that is written in the last paragraph:

It is a design flaw in human cognition...

So this was my comment in the article's comment section which I bring here for discussion:

Since I think evolution makes us quite fit to our current environment I don't think cognitive biases are design flaws, in the above example you imply that even if you had the information available to guess the truth, your guess was another one and it was false, therefore you experienced a flaw in your cognition.

My hypotheses is that reaching the truth or communicating it in the IRC may have not been the end objective of your cognitive process, in this case just to dismiss the issue as something that was not important anyway "so move on and stop wasting resources in this discussion" was maybe the "biological" objective and as such it should be correct, not a flaw.

If the above is true then all cognitive bias, simplistic heuristics, fallacies, and dark arts are good since we have conducted our lives for 200,000 years according to these and we are alive and kicking.

Rationality and our search to be LessWrong, which I support, may be tools we are developing to evolve in our competitive ability within our species, but not a "correction" of something that is wrong in our design.

Edit 1: I realize there is change in the environment and that may make some of our cognitive biases, which were useful in the past, to be obsolete. If the word "flaw" is also applicable to describe something that is obsolete then I was wrong above. If not, I prefer the word obsolete to characterize cognitive biases that are no longer functional for our preservation.
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, February 2015, chapter 112
by Gondolinian — 2015-02-25T21:00:51.464Z

This is a new thread to discuss Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality and anything related to it. This thread is intended for discussing chapter 112.

There is a site dedicated to the story at hpmor.com, which is now the place to go to find the authors notes and all sorts of other goodies. AdeleneDawner has kept an archive of Author’s Notes. (This goes up to the notes for chapter 76, and is now not updating. The authors notes from chapter 77 onwards are on hpmor.com.)

Spoiler Warning: this thread is full of spoilers. With few exceptions, spoilers for MOR and canon are fair game to post, without warning or rot13. More specifically:

You do not need to rot13 anything about HP:MoR or the original Harry Potter series unless you are posting insider information from Eliezer Yudkowsky which is not supposed to be publicly available (which includes public statements by Eliezer that have been retracted).

If there is evidence for X in MOR and/or canon then it’s fine to post about X without rot13, even if you also have heard privately from Eliezer that X is true. But you should not post that “Eliezer said X is true” unless you use rot13.
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, February 2015, chapter 111
by b_sen — 2015-02-25T18:52:01.381Z

This is a new thread to discuss Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality and anything related to it. This thread is intended for discussing chapter 111.

There is a site dedicated to the story at hpmor.com, which is now the place to go to find the authors notes and all sorts of other goodies. AdeleneDawner has kept an archive of Author’s Notes. (This goes up to the notes for chapter 76, and is now not updating. The authors notes from chapter 77 onwards are on hpmor.com.)

Spoiler Warning: this thread is full of spoilers. With few exceptions, spoilers for MOR and canon are fair game to post, without warning or rot13. More specifically:

You do not need to rot13 anything about HP:MoR or the original Harry Potter series unless you are posting insider information from Eliezer Yudkowsky which is not supposed to be publicly available (which includes public statements by Eliezer that have been retracted).

If there is evidence for X in MOR and/or canon then it’s fine to post about X without rot13, even if you also have heard privately from Eliezer that X is true. But you should not post that “Eliezer said X is true” unless you use rot13.
Does hormetism work? Opponent process theory.
by  — 2015-02-25T14:00:52.391Z

To the fun theory, hedonic treadmill sequences.

http://gettingstronger.org/hormesis/

TL;DR stoicism with science.

Key idea: OPT, Opponent Process Theory: http://gettingstronger.org/2010/05/opponent-process-theory/

Research, PDF: http://gettingstronger.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Solomon-Opponent-Process-1980.pdf

From the article:

"In hedonic reversal, a stimulus that initially causes a pleasant or unpleasant response does not just dissipate or fade away, as Irvine describes, but rather the initial feeling leads to an opposite secondary emotion or sensation. Remarkably, the secondary reaction is often deeper or longer lasting than the initial reaction. And what is more, when the stimulus is repeated many times, the initial response becomes weaker and the secondary response becomes stronger and lasts longer."
Meetup : Umbc meetup 
by Ronny Fernandez — 2015-02-25T04:00:34.284Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Umbc meetup

WHEN:
24 March 2015 04:56:00PM (-0500)

WHERE:
1000 Hilltop cir Catonsville

We will meet in the westhill community center, if you don't know where that is, feel free to call or text 2014066972.

Discussion article for the meetup : Umbc meetup
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, February 2015, chapter 110
by Gondolinian — 2015-02-24T20:01:34.841Z

This is a new thread to discuss Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality and anything related to it. This thread is intended for discussing chapter 110.

There is a site dedicated to the story at hpmor.com, which is now the place to go to find the authors notes and all sorts of other goodies. AdeleneDawner has kept an archive of Author’s Notes. (This goes up to the notes for chapter 76, and is now not updating. The authors notes from chapter 77 onwards are on hpmor.com.)

Spoiler Warning: this thread is full of spoilers. With few exceptions, spoilers for MOR and canon are fair game to post, without warning or rot13. More specifically:

You do not need to rot13 anything about HP:MoR or the original Harry Potter series unless you are posting insider information from Eliezer Yudkowsky which is not supposed to be publicly available (which includes public statements by Eliezer that have been retracted).

If there is evidence for X in MOR and/or canon then it’s fine to post about X without rot13, even if you also have heard privately from Eliezer that X is true. But you should not post that “Eliezer said X is true” unless you use rot13.
Meetup : Israel: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality Pi Day Wrap Party
by JoshuaFox — 2015-02-24T07:07:53.483Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Israel: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality Pi Day Wrap Party

WHEN:
14 March 2015 08:30:00PM (+0200)

WHERE:
Herzliya, Israel

Yonatan Calé is hosting the Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality Pi Day Wrap party: Saturday, March 14 at 20:30 in Herzliya.

Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality will have its final chapter released on Pi Day (3.14), and this is one of the celebrations are being planned around the world.

Contact Yonatan at myselfandfredy@gmail.com for the exact location. Here's the Facebook event where you can be in touch and RSVP https://www.facebook.com/events/432725193554286/

Discussion article for the meetup : Israel: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality Pi Day Wrap Party
Saving for the long term
by Adam Zerner — 2015-02-24T03:33:32.183Z

I'm 22 years old, just got a job, and have the option of putting money in a 401k. More generally, I just started making money and need to think about how I'm going to invest and save it.

As far as long-term/retirement savings goes, the way I see it is that my goal is to ensure that I have a sufficient standard of living when I'm "old" (70-80). I see a few ways that this can happen:

There is enough wealth creation and distribution by then such that I pretty much won't have to do anything. One way this could happen is if there was a singularity. I'm no expert on this topic, but the experts seem to be pretty confident that it'll happen by the time I retire.
Median optimistic year (10% likelihood): 2022
Median realistic year (50% likelihood): 2040
Median pessimistic year (90% likelihood): 2075
- http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-2.html
And even if they're wrong and there's no singularity, it still seems to be very likely that there will be immense wealth creation in the next 60 or so years, and I'm sure that there'll be a fair amount of distribution as well, such that the poorest people will probably have reasonably comfortable lives. I'm a believer in Kurweil's Law of Accelerating Returns, but even if you project linear growth, there'd still be immense growth.
Given all of this, I find thinking that "wealth creation + distribution over the next 60 years -> sufficient standard of living for everyone" is a rather likely scenario. But my logic here is very "outside view-y" - I don't "really understand" the component steps and their associated likelihoods, so my confidence is limited.

I start a startup, make a lot of money, and it lasts until retirement. I think that starting a startup and using the money to do good is the way for me to maximize the positive impact I have on the world, as well as my own happiness, and so I plan on working relentlessly until that happens. Ie. I'm going to continue to try, no matter how many times I fail. I may need to take some time to work in order to save up money and/or develop skills though.
Anyway, I think that there is a pretty good chance that I succeed, in, say the next 20 years. I never thought hard enough about it to put a number on it, but I'll try it here.
Say that I get 10 tries to start a startup in the next 20 years (I know that some take longer than 2 years to fail,

...
Superintelligence 24: Morality models and "do what I mean"
by KatjaGrace — 2015-02-24T02:00:50.974Z

This is part of a weekly reading group on Nick Bostrom's book, Superintelligence. For more information about the group, and an index of posts so far see the announcement post. For the schedule of future topics, see MIRI's reading guide.

Welcome. This week we discuss the twenty-fourth section in the reading guide: Morality models and "Do what I mean".

This post summarizes the section, and offers a few relevant notes, and ideas for further investigation. Some of my own thoughts and questions for discussion are in the comments.

There is no need to proceed in order through this post, or to look at everything. Feel free to jump straight to the discussion. Where applicable and I remember, page numbers indicate the rough part of the chapter that is most related (not necessarily that the chapter is being cited for the specific claim).

Reading: “Morality models” and “Do what I mean” from Chapter 13.

Summary

Moral rightness (MR) AI: AI which seeks to do what is morally right

Another form of 'indirect normativity'

Requires moral realism to be true to do anything, but we could ask the AI to evaluate that and do something else if moral realism is false

Avoids some complications of CEV

If moral realism is true, is better than CEV (though may be terrible for us)

We often want to say 'do what I mean' with respect to goals we try to specify. This is doing a lot of the work sometimes, so if we could specify that well perhaps it could also just stand alone: do what I want. This is much like CEV again.

Another view

Olle Häggström again, on Bostrom's 'Milky Way Preserve':

The idea [of a Moral Rightness AI] is that a superintelligence might be successful at the task (where we humans have so far failed) of figuring out what is objectively morally right. It should then take objective morality to heart as its own values.1,2

Bostrom sees a number of pros and cons of this idea. A major concern is that objective morality may not be in humanity's best interest. Suppose for instance (not entirely implausibly) that objective morality is a kind of hedonistic utilitarianism, where "an action is morally right (and morally permissible) if and only if, among all feasible actions, no other action would produce a greater balance of pleasure over suffering" (p 219). Some years ago I offered a thought experiment&nbs

...
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, February 2015, chapter 109
by Gondolinian — 2015-02-23T20:05:08.883Z

This is a new thread to discuss Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality and anything related to it. This thread is intended for discussing chapter 109.

There is a site dedicated to the story at hpmor.com, which is now the place to go to find the authors notes and all sorts of other goodies. AdeleneDawner has kept an archive of Author’s Notes. (This goes up to the notes for chapter 76, and is now not updating. The authors notes from chapter 77 onwards are on hpmor.com.)

Spoiler Warning: this thread is full of spoilers. With few exceptions, spoilers for MOR and canon are fair game to post, without warning or rot13. More specifically:

You do not need to rot13 anything about HP:MoR or the original Harry Potter series unless you are posting insider information from Eliezer Yudkowsky which is not supposed to be publicly available (which includes public statements by Eliezer that have been retracted).

If there is evidence for X in MOR and/or canon then it’s fine to post about X without rot13, even if you also have heard privately from Eliezer that X is true. But you should not post that “Eliezer said X is true” unless you use rot13.
A quick heuristic for evaluating elites (or anyone else)
by  — 2015-02-23T16:22:14.846Z

Summary: suppose that for some reason you want to figure out how a society works or worked in a given time and place, largely you want to see if it is a meritocracy where productive people get ahead and thus conditions are roughly fair and efficient, or is it more like a parasitical elite sucking the blood out of everybody. I present a heuristic for this and also as a bonus this also predicts how intellectuals work there.

I would look at whether the elites are specialists or generalists. We learned it from Adam Smith that a division of labor is efficient, and if people get rich without being efficient, well, that is a red flag. If someone's rich, and they tell you they are specialists like manufacturing food scented soap or are specialists in retina surgery, you could have the impression that when such people get ahead, circumstances are fair and meritocratic. But when the rich people you meet seemed to be more vague, like owning shares in various businesses and you don't see any connection between them (and they are not Buffet type investors either, they keep owning the same shares), or when all you gather is that their skillset is something very general, like generic businesses sense or people skills, you should be suspicious that the market may be rigged or corrupted, perhaps through establishing an overbearing and corrupted state, and overally the system is neither fair nor efficient.

Objection: but generic skills can be valuable!

Counter-objection: yes, but people with generic skills should be outcompeted by people with generic AND specialist skills, so the generalists should only see a middling level of success and not be on top. Alternatively, people who want to get very succesful using only generic skills should probably find the most success in a fair and efficient market by turning that generic skill into a specialization, usually a service/consulting. Thus, someone who has excellent people skills but does not like learning technical details would not see the most success (only a middling level) as a used car salesperson, or any technical product salesperson and would rather be providing sales training, communication training services, courses, consulting, writing books.

Counter-counter-objection: we know it since Adam Smith's Scottish Highlands blacksmith example that you can only specialize if there is a lot of competition, not only in the sens...