trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
The Limits of My Rationality
by JoshuaMyer — 2014-12-09T21:08:32.873Z

As requested here is an introductory abstract.

The search for bias in the linguistic representations of our cognitive processes serves several purposes in this community. By pruning irrational thoughts, we can potentially effect each other in complex ways. Leaning heavy on cognitivist pedagogy, this essay represents my subjective experience trying to reconcile a perceived conflict between the rhetorical goals of the community and the absence of a generative, organic conceptualization of rationality.

The Story
Though I've only been here a short time, I find myself fascinated by this discourse community. To discover a group of individuals bound together under the common goal of applied rationality has been an experience that has enriched my life significantly. So please understand, I do not mean to insult by what I am about to say, merely to encourage a somewhat more constructive approach to what I understand as the goal of this community: to apply collectively reinforced notions of rational thought to all areas of life.

As I followed the links and read the articles on the homepage, I found myself somewhat disturbed by the juxtaposition of these highly specific definitions of biases to the narrative structures of parables providing examples in which a bias results in an incorrect conclusion. At first, I thought that perhaps my emotional reaction stemmed from rejecting the unfamiliar; naturally, I decided to learn more about the situation.
As I read on, my interests drifted from the rhetorical structure of each article (if anyone is interested I might pursue an analysis of rhetoric further though I'm not sure I see a pressing need for this), towards the mystery of how others in the community apply the lessons contained therein. My belief was that the parables would cause most readers to form a negative association of the bias with an undesirable outcome.
Even a quick skim of the discussions taking place on this site will reveal energetic debate on a variety of topics of potential importance, peppered heavily with accusations of bias. At this point, I noticed the comments that seem to get voted up are ones that are thoughtfully composed, well informed, soundly conceptualized and appropriately referential. Generally, this is true of the articles as well, and so it should be i...
Feedback requested by Intentional Insights on workbook conveying rational thinking about meaning and purpose to a broad audience
by Gleb_Tsipursky — 2014-12-09T19:03:47.420Z

We at Intentional Insights would appreciate your help with feedback on optimize a workbook that conveys rational thinking to find meaning and purpose in life for a broad audience. Last time, we asked for your feedback, and we changed our content offerings based on comments we received from fellow Less Wrongers, as you can see from the Edit to this post. We would be glad to update our beliefs again and revise the workbook based on your feedback.

For a bit of context, the workbook is part of our efforts to promote rational thinking to a broad audience and thus raise the sanity waterline. It’s based on research on how other societies besides the United States helped their citizens find meaning and purpose, such as research I did on the Soviet Union and Zuckerman did on Sweden and Denmark. It’s also based on research on the contemporary United States by psychologists such as Steger, Duffy and Dik, Seligman, and others.

The target audience is reason-minded youth and young adults, especially secular-oriented ones. The goal is to get such people to engage with academic research on how our minds work, and thus get them interested in exploring rational thinking more broadly, eventually getting them turned on to more advanced rationality, such as found on Less Wrong itself. The workbook is written in a style aimed to create cognitive ease, with narratives, personal stories, graphics, and research-based exercises.

Here is the link to the workbook draft itself. Any and all suggestions are welcomed, and thanks for taking the time to engage with this workbook and give your feedback – much appreciated!
Meetup : Israel Less Wrong Meetup - Social and Board Games
by Anatoly_Vorobey — 2014-12-09T13:42:39.444Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Israel Less Wrong Meetup - Social and Board Games

WHEN:
09 December 2014 07:00:00PM (+0200)

WHERE:
Google Tel Aviv

We're going to have a meetup on Tuesday, December 9th at Google Israel's offices, Electra Tower, 98 Yigal Alon st., Tel Aviv.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The time above might say 6pm or 7pm or 8pm depending on how daylight savings time is processed. The meetup is at 7pm Israel Local Time.

This time we're going to have a social meetup! We'll be socializing and playing games.

Specifically, we look forward to playing any cool board or card game anyone will bring. By all means bring your favorite game(s) with you and teach others or find people who already like that game. But it's also fine to come empty-handed. We always end up with enough games for everyone.

We'll start the meetup at 19:00, and we'll go on as much as we like to. Feel free to come a little bit later, as there is no agenda. (We've decided to start slightly earlier this time to give us more time and accommodate people with different schedules).

We'll meet at the 29th floor of the building. If you arrive and cant find your way around, call Anatoly, who is graciously hosting us, at 054-245-1060. Email at avorobey@gmail.com also works. See you there!

Discussion article for the meetup : Israel Less Wrong Meetup - Social and Board Games
Does utilitarianism "require" extreme self sacrifice? If not why do people commonly say it does?
by Princess_Stargirl — 2014-12-09T08:32:35.121Z

Chist Hallquist wrote the following in an article (if you know the article please, please don't bring it up, I don't want to discuss the article in general):

"For example, utilitarianism apparently endorses killing a single innocent person and harvesting their organs if it will save five other people. It also appears to imply that donating all your money to charity beyond what you need to survive isn’t just admirable but morally obligatory. "

The non-bold part is not what is confusing me. But where does the "obligatory" part come in. I don't really how its obvious what, if any, ethical obligations utilitarianism implies. given a set of basic assumptions utilitarianism lets you argue whether one action is more moral than another. But I don’t see how its obvious which, if any, moral benchmarks utilitarianism sets for “obligatory.” I can see how certain frameworks on top of utilitarianism imply certain moral requirements. But I do not see how the bolded quote is a criticism of the basic theory of utilitarianism.

However this criticism comes up all the time. Honestly the best explanation I could come up with was that people were being unfair to utilitarianism and not thinking through their statements. But the above quote is by HallQ who is intelligent and thoughtful. So now I am genuinely very curious.

Do you think utilitarianism really require such extreme self sacrifice and if so why? And if it does not require this why do so many people say it does? I am very confused and would appreciate help working this out.

edit:

I am having trouble asking this question clearly. Since utilitarianism is probably best thought of as a cluster of beliefs. So its not clear what asking "does utilitarianism imply X" actually means. Still I made this post since I am confused. Many thoughtful people identity as utilitarian (for example Ozy and theunitofcaring) yet do not think people have extreme obligations. However I can think of examples where people do not seem to understand the implications of their ethical frameowrks. For example many Jewish people endorse the message of the following story:

Rabbi Hilel was asked to explain the Torah while standing on one foot and responded "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation of this--go and study it!"

The story is presumably apocryphal but ...
An investment analogy for Pascal's Mugging
by  — 2014-12-09T07:50:07.188Z

A lottery ticket sometimes has positive expected value, (a $1 ticket might be expected to pay out $1.30). How many tickets should you buy?

Probably none. Informally, all but the richest players can expect to go broke before they win, despite the positive expected value of a ticket.

In more precise terms: In order to maximize the long-term growth rate of your money (or log money), you'll want to put a very small fraction of your bankroll into lotteries tickets, which will imply an "amount to invest" that is less than the cost of a single ticket, (excluding billionaires). If you put too great a proportion of your resources into a risky but positive expected value asset, the long-term growth rate of your resources can become negative. For an intuitive example, imagine Bill Gates dumping 99% percent of his wealth into a series of positive expected-value bets with single-lottery-ticket-like odds.

This article has some graphs and details on the lottery. This pdf on the Kelly criterion has some examples and general dicussion of this type of problem.

Can we think about Pascal mugging the same way?

The applicability might depend on whether we're trading resource-generating-resources for non-resource-generating assets. So if we're offered something like cash, the lottery ticket model (with payout inversely varying with estimated odds) is a decent fit. But what if we're offered utility in some direct and non-interest-bearing form?

Another limit: For a sufficiency unlikely but positive-expected-value gamble, you can expect the heat death of the universe before actually realizing any of the expected value.
Superintelligence 13: Capability control methods
by KatjaGrace — 2014-12-09T02:00:34.433Z

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 thirteenth section in the reading guide: capability control methods. This corresponds to the start of chapter nine.

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: “Two agency problems” and “Capability control methods” from Chapter 9

Summary

If the default outcome is doom, how can we avoid it? (p127)

We can divide this 'control problem' into two parts:

The first principal-agent problem: the well known problem faced by a sponsor wanting an employee to fulfill their wishes (usually called 'the principal agent problem')

The second principal-agent problem: the emerging problem of a developer wanting their AI to fulfill their wishes

How to solve second problem? We can't rely on behavioral observation (as seen in week 11). Two other options are 'capability control methods' and 'motivation selection methods'. We see the former this week, and the latter next week.

Capability control methods: avoiding bad outcomes through limiting what an AI can do. (p129)

Some capability control methods:

Boxing: minimize interaction between the AI and the outside world. Note that the AI must interact with the world to be useful, and that it is hard to eliminate small interactions. (p129)

Incentive methods: set up the AI's environment such that it is in the AI's interest to cooperate. e.g. a social environment with punishment or social repercussions often achieves this for contemporary agents. One could also design a reward system, perhaps with cryptographic rewards (so that the AI could not wirehead) or heavily discounted rewards (so that long term plans are not worth the short term risk of detection) (p131)

Anthropic capt

...
Stupid Questions December 2014
by Gondolinian — 2014-12-08T15:39:25.235Z

This thread is for asking any questions that might seem obvious, tangential, silly or what-have-you. Don't be shy, everyone has holes in their knowledge, though the fewer and the smaller we can make them, the better.

Please be respectful of other people's admitting ignorance and don't mock them for it, as they're doing a noble thing.

To any future monthly posters of SQ threads, please remember to add the "stupid_questions" tag.
[Link] An exact mapping between the Variational Renormalization Group and Deep Learning]
by Gunnar_Zarncke — 2014-12-08T14:33:43.827Z

An exact mapping between the Variational Renormalization Group and Deep Learning by Pankaj Mehta, David J. Schwab

Deep learning is a broad set of techniques that uses multiple layers of representation to automatically learn relevant features directly from structured data. Recently, such techniques have yielded record-breaking results on a diverse set of difficult machine learning tasks in computer vision, speech recognition, and natural language processing. Despite the enormous success of deep learning, relatively little is understood theoretically about why these techniques are so successful at feature learning and compression. Here, we show that deep learning is intimately related to one of the most important and successful techniques in theoretical physics, the renormalization group (RG). RG is an iterative coarse-graining scheme that allows for the extraction of relevant features (i.e. operators) as a physical system is examined at different length scales. We construct an exact mapping from the variational renormalization group, first introduced by Kadanoff, and deep learning architectures based on Restricted Boltzmann Machines (RBMs). We illustrate these ideas using the nearest-neighbor Ising Model in one and two-dimensions. Our results suggests that deep learning algorithms may be employing a generalized RG-like scheme to learn relevant features from data.

To me this paper suggests that deep learning is an approach that could be made or is already conceptually general enough to learn everything there is to learn (assuming sufficient time and resources). Thus it could already be used as the base algorithm of a self-optimizing AGI.
Open thread, Dec. 8 - Dec. 15, 2014
by Gondolinian — 2014-12-08T00:06:02.006Z

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

Previous OT

Next OT

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.

If you have any comments about the Open Thread posts themselves or this post specifically, please post them as a reply to the [META] comment. Aside from that, this thread is as organized as you collectively wish to make it.
PSA: Eugine_Nier evading ban?
by Dahlen — 2014-12-07T23:23:12.678Z

I know this reeks of witch-hunting, but... I have a hunch that u/Eugine_Nier is back under the guise of u/Azathoth123. Reasons:

Same political views, with a tendency to be outspoken about them

Karma hovering in the 70s% for both accounts, occasionally going into the 60s%, significantly lower than the LW average

The dates match up. Kaj Sotala announced on July 03, 2014 that Eugine was to be permanently banned. The first comment from Azathoth123 was on July 12, 2014.

The one that got my attention was the posting pattern. Particularly, Eugine_Nier had a pervasive pattern of exceeding the quote limits per rationality thread. That's actually the first thing I had noticed about the guy back when he was first active, and a few times I thought about drawing attention to the way he flouted the rules, but never got around to it/cared enough about the matter. Now, I see Azathoth123 doing the same thing. The current Rationality Quotes thread has four quotes from him already and it hasn't even been a week since the thread was posted; all of them have something to do with his political views. As do basically all of his postings so far.

Each one of these points, separately, has a small prior probability if the two of them are not the same person. Together, they have an even smaller probability. Especially the predilection for posting one too many rationality quotes; seriously, how common an occurrence is that one in particular?

My experience so far with the internet has been that people like Eugine never really leave an online community they have pestered for so long. It doesn't matter if they're IP banned or something. They always come back, just under a different name, and they come back shortly.

I don't have an axe to grind against the guy, I've only spoken to him a couple of times and didn't notice any particularly large karma hits afterwards, I just really dislike it when someone skirts the rules like that. Disruptive users evading permanent bans never helped any community ever.
Obviously I'm posting this here because I think a moderator should look into the matter. Usually I would be posting a disclaimer of some sort, apologizing in advance to Azathoth123 for attacking his standing with slanderous accusations if this turned out not to be the case. Well, I won't. The more I look into the matter, the more confident I get that they're the same person. Azathoth, i...
Meetup : Moscow social meetup: codename "Order of Infrared Viola"
by Alexander230 — 2014-12-07T22:30:08.906Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Moscow social meetup: codename "Order of Infrared Viola"

WHEN:
14 December 2014 02:00:00PM (+0300)

WHERE:
Russia, Moscow, Strelbishensky pereulok, 10

Welcome to the experimental Social Chaotic meetup! It will be experimental on 2 ways:

It will be open: I will announce the meetup to all places where open meetups are usually announced by Moscow LW community.

There will be elements of Chaos, such as "secret quests" and "papers with wishes". Read further for details.

Main themes of meetup are party games and table games.

I have a collection of party and table games, and also you can bring your games with you. We will decide what games to play by participants' wishes.

Also there will be Training game / Team training game: funny game and one of symbols of the Order of Chaos.

Also there will be "rational games": Fallacymania, Zendo, "Quick estimation".

"Secret quests" is very chaotic game. Players take papers with secret quests in the beginning of meetup, and they don't show their quests to others. The goal is to complete your quest. Examples of quests and a form for your ideas for quests are here:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/19gReYSTytJIu7a7gmUzN4Vvhb91VJ0nUm7hL974QqiU/viewform

"Papers with wishes": there will be a vase where you will be able to put a paper with a wish what you want from others to do with you. You will need to write your name on your paper. All participants can take others' papers in any time. Then they read the paper, and if there is something adequate and feasible, they do it :-)

Address of meetup:

Strelbishensky per., 10, ap.60, 3rd entrance, code 60B3112, 5th floor. Nearest metro station: Vystavochnaya. If you have questions, call me 8-905-527-30-82 or write me on e-mail alexander230r@gmail.com (it's better to call if you're searching a way before the meetup).

Discussion article for the meetup : Moscow social meetup: codename "Order of Infrared Viola"
A Story With Zombies
by Scott Alexander — 2014-12-07T20:11:47.000Z

(inspired by Zombies: Seriously, Enough, Zombies Are So Overdone, and Scifi/Fantasy Stories Editors Are Tired Of Seeing: Zombies)

He walked into my office and threw the manuscript on my desk with a thud.

“It’s called Thankful For Zombies. A zombie story where…”

“Nope,” I said.

His face deflated like a balloon. “But I didn’t even…”

“Zombies are overdone,” I said.

“But this is a zombie story with a twist!”

“Zombie stories with twists are super overdone.”

“But this is a story about an extended family who get together for Thanksgiving dinner, only to be interrupted by a zombie apocalypse. It’s a Thanksgiving story about zombies. You have to admit that the combination of zombies and Thanksgiving has never…”

“Done,” I said.

“Wait, really? The family starts out estranged and suspicious of each other, but then when they all have to work together to…”

“Done,” I said.

“How could that have been done?”

“Listen. I know you won’t believe me, but for the past ten years or so, the best literary minds of our generation have been working on creating zombie stories just different enough from every other zombie story around to get published. First the clever and interesting twists got explored. Then the mediocre and boring twists. Then the absurd and idiotic twists. Finally the genre got entirely mined out. There is now a New York Times bestselling book about zombies invading Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice. If your idea isn’t weirder than that, it’s been done. And that’s the logical ‘if’. If your idea is weirder than that, it has also been done.”

“I will get Thankful for Zombies published,” he said.

“You won’t,” I advised him.

“I just have to think of an original angle.”

“You really won’t,” I told him.

“The zombies are the good guys,” he proposed.

“Done.”

“The zombies are smarter than humans.”

“Done.”

“In the end, we ourselves are the zombies.”

“Done.”

“A human girl falls in love with a zombie.”

“Done.”

“Okay, fine. Toss the Thanksgiving angle. There’s got to be some zombie plot that will be fresh and new.”...