trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Why the culture of exercise/fitness is broken and how to fix it
by  — 2015-03-10T11:24:22.920Z

Summary

The culture of exercise/fitness suffers from a motivation (and discipline) problem. Sports turn it around and make it actually fun, lessening the need for those.

The problem

Despite the the media and blogs and forums talking incredibly a lot about exercise/fitness, not everybody is motivated to do it. Of those who do, some hate it and will stop once the motivation runs out. Some try to go from motivation to discipline to fight it, but it is an uphill fight: why exercise/fitness cannot be fun you want to do, not a second grinding job you must do? The need for discipline or motivation suggests it is no fun. Some people try to turn boring exercise into a game with e.g. Fitocracy. However there is an old and time-tested way to do it: actual sports, not necessarily competitively.

The approximate reason

Sports coaches have used strength and cardio training as a part of their toolbox since a long time. Exercise/fitness looks a lot like basically taking out this aspect of sport trainings and leaving out the rest. [1][2]
However by doing so we lose three important motivators:
1) Playing sports - not necessarily on competitive levels! - is fun (for some at least), and in itself they work as cardio or HIIT training. Think playing soccer or martial arts sparring or playing tennis, hard effort and rest intervals, quite HIIT-ish, and HIIT training seems to confer similar benefits to weight lifting - it is usually considered anaerobic.
2) When doing exercise/fitness our motivation is usually to be healthier, feel better, and be sexier. When doing strength or cardio as part of a sports coaching / training, we have a fourth motivator: to be actually better at playing at that sport. One big issue with exercise/fitness is that in an comfy urban life we do not actually use strength or endurance, and this is a huge demotivator (for me at least, I suspect others too): it feels a bit like growing a pretty but useless third leg. Why be stronger, when spending that time studying is more efficient for real world success? (The worst offender is the CrossFit movement: it makes you fit for all kinds of purposes, most of which you will never pursue!) Health, mood and sexiness are good reasons, but still doing a sport where we can use strength or endurance for some real goal makes a whole world of difference - for me at least. What do you think your "inner caveman"...
[Link] Hacking Technological Determinism for Fun and Profit
by  — 2015-03-10T09:03:33.654Z

An article by Nyan Sandwich on More Right.

I’ve recently encountered and more fully grokked some ideas that invalidate my previous understanding of how to achieve political ends. To start with, I saw an interesting talk that urged Silicon Valley entrepreneurs to work on technologies that facilitate Exit from the influence of the “Paper Belt”, which in our terms is roughly the Cathedral. Then there have been our recent discussions with Scott Alexander, and his solid case for Technological Determinism. On that background, I’ve been rethinking our methods.

The argument is roughly that, if culture is downstream of technology, there is no point engaging historical inevitability at the level of culture. This is debatable and is currently being debated, but supposing it’s true, I want to explore methods for achieving our ends by placing ourselves upstream of technology.

We’ll start with the questions any decent entrepreneur should be asking continuously. First, what is the problem? The modern establishment has shown itself unable to protect us from crime and urban decay; unable to extract first-world living conditions from the materially richest country on earth; unable to preserve community, family, and civil society; unable to educate everyone to high-class standards of values and attitudes; unable to hold the flame of rational truth finding in public discourse; etcetera. We know that more is possible.

What is the current solution? The reflex answer, and therefor what we have been doing, is to use the usual method: intellectual discourse, movement building, ideological engineering, and organized political action. But in the cases where this worked – the French, American, and Russian revolutions, and the Nazi movement are examples – they had multiple seriously talented people in place, and it’s not even clear whether those people were driven by their own agency rather than historical inevitability. Perhaps we could try something different.

Why is the current solution inadequate? The world has changed. We’re all walking around with instantly networked supercomputers in our pockets; we’re seated all around the world having this discussion in a medium that doesn’t even physically exist, and barely existed at all 10 years ago; we have data about nearly everyone and

...
[Link] On Saving the World and Other Delusions
by  — 2015-03-10T09:02:20.803Z

A blog post by Athrelon on More Right.

1.

I recently had a conversation with a friend of mine who suffered a crisis of faith of sorts. His startup, which initially had an extremely ambitious, world-altering business plan, had to retrench and start to find a more modest product-market fit. He was upset, not so much because of decreased prospects for a big dollar exit, but because, as he put it, “if I’m not trying to save the world, what’s the point of all this?”

It’s a standard narrative in the startup world: “the world is broken; I have a really ambitious plan to fix it.” But what I told him was that this is a totally crazy way of measuring both impact and a meaningful life. Most of the people who make a big impact in the world are doing paperwork, publishing research, working with the constraints of the system. They’re closer to a paper-pushing bureaucrat than a bold maverick. Sometimes the papers you’re pushing are exit visas for Jews.

The nerd’s sense of measuring everything here is a big handicap when it comes to assessing life meaningfulness. Our instincts for impact evolved in a world where only a few dozen people had real agency in your world; you were part of what we’d perceive as a small ingroup by default, and it wouldn’t be too crazy to think you could be one of the most respected and influential people in the known world. Today, it’s more difficult but still possible to achieve that feeling – but crucially, you have to carefully cultivate insensitivity to scope. You could become the manager of a small business, or a local leader in the Mormon church. Despite all the social disruptions of mobility and super-Dunbar living, that could probably still feel pretty similar from the inside to being a tribal elder.

But then nerds have to come in and ruin everything by measuring in terms of real world impact. And by that metric, nobody measures up to our brain’s expectation of impactfulness. Measured in terms of a civilization of billions, even the most successful career is going to feel like a drop in the bucket, and narrative-based dreams of world-changing are cartoonish. In theory, this quantitative thinking should also provide compensating solace, by saying “Yeah, well at least you did 10x what the average person is able

...
Superintelligence 26: Science and technology strategy
by KatjaGrace — 2015-03-10T01:43:48.371Z

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-sixth section in the reading guide: Science and technology strategy. Sorry for posting late—my car broke.

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: “Science and technology strategy” from Chapter 14

Summary

This section will introduce concepts that are useful for thinking about long term issues in science and technology (p228)

Person affecting perspective: one should act in the best interests of everyone who already exists, or who will exist independent of one's choices (p228)

Impersonal perspective: one should act in the best interests of everyone, including those who may be brought into existence by one's choices. (p228)

Technological completion conjecture: "If scientific and technological development efforts do not cease, then all important basic capabilities that could be obtained through some possible technology will be obtained." (p229)

This does not imply that it is futile to try to steer technology. Efforts may cease. It might also matter exactly when things are developed, who develops them, and in what context.

Principle of differential technological development: one should slow the development of dangerous and harmful technologies relative to beneficial technologies (p230)

We have a preferred order for some technologies, e.g. it is better to have superintelligence later relative to social progress, but earlier relative to other existential risks. (p230-233)

If a macrostructural development accelerator is a magic lever which slows the large scale features of history (e.g. technological change, geopolitical dynamics) while leaving the small scale features the s

...
Human Capital Contracts
by Dias — 2015-03-10T01:21:34.679Z

Cross-posted on my blog here. Partially inspired by some slatestarcodex discussion here.

Summary: Human Capital Contracts would allow people sell a certain % of their future income in return for upfront cash, as opposed to taking out a loan. This would be less risky for them, would give them valuable information about different college majors, and would help give people de facto ‘mentors’, among other advantages. Adverse selection could reduce the benefits, and reducing inter-state competition poses a major possible disadvantage. We also discuss two niche applications: parents and divorce.

Readers with an economics background might like to jump to the sections on 'Education' and 'Mentors - Incentive Alignment'

Debt vs equity financing

There are two methods of financing for companies; debt and equity.

Debt is fundamentally very simple. I give the company $100 now; it promises to give me $105 in a year’s time. They owe me a fixed amount in return. Hopefully in the meantime the company has invested that $100 in a project or piece of equipment that produces more than $105; if so they made a profit on the transaction as a whole. Here the risk is borne by the company; they have no choice but to pay me back, even if they didn’t make a profit this year. This form of financing is familiar to most people, as they personally use savings accounts, credit cards, mortgages, auto loans and so on.

Equity, unlike debt, does not represent a fixed level of obligation. Instead the company owes you a certain fraction of future profits. If you give a company $100 in return for a 10% share, and they made a $50 profit, your share of the profit is $5. Hopefully they will make growing profits for many years, in which case your portion will grow to $6, to $7, and so on. Here the risk is borne by you; if they don’t make a profit, you get nothing. This form of financing is much less familiar to most people; about the only experience they are likely to have would be investing in the stock market, but that is now highly abstract so the underlying mechanics are obscured.

Equity: Less Risky than Debt

One of the biggest advantages of this system is it moves the risk from the individual borrower to the investor. When you borrow money, you put yourself at substantial risk. What if you struggle to find a good job after college? You’re still obliged to make repaym...
Old Letter To My Kids About "Critical Thinking"
by  — 2015-03-10T00:59:47.848Z

Soon after my divorce in 2009 and before I ever learned about rationality, critical thinking, cognitive biases, or fallacies, I wrote this letter to my kids.

They were 13, 11, and 10, I didn't expect them to understand it then, but my idea was for them to have it as a record of how I saw the world. My concern was that without me nearby they would be too conditioned by what I now know are cognitive biases and the "dark arts" in general.

***

Introduction

In recent years, for various reasons, and in my spare time, I have begun a process of exploring the origin of things. My goal has been to try to understand, at least roughly, the different ways in which things happen, their existence, where they come from, and where they are headed.

While this seems ambitious, my search has been very simple and general and I have only tried to understand the basics. I’m not a researcher, a scientist, a theologian, or an academic.

Personally, this process has helped me form an opinion about some issues I consider important.

The sources of information were mainly books, articles in specialized and non-specialized magazines, newspapers, the internet, informal conversations with colleagues and friends, and my personal analysis from observations of everyday life.

My intention here is to write the sum of my thoughts which together I call “My Philosophy” because in fact that is what they are, just thoughts. I’m simply drawing conclusions as I analyze information and I make my comments without trying to check them or prove them. Like I wrote above, they are nothing more than my personal thoughts.

It is known that humanity has very limited knowledge in many aspects. At the same time, I also think that as we go learning and better understanding the origin and true causes of things we, as individuals and humankind in general, may become more effective in managing our existence.

My most important goal is for my children to understand my thoughts and how I see things. Although surely they will choose their own paths, at least this analysis has been helpful for me! Most importantly the point is for them to have a critical way of reasoning things and to challenge, from time to time, general knowledge.

As this is only "My Philosophy” I do not think that what I write here is necessarily permanent or not debatable or not amendable by better...
Meetup : Bangalore meetup + pi-day wrap party
by anandjeyahar — 2015-03-09T23:57:50.228Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Bangalore meetup + pi-day wrap party

WHEN:
14 March 2015 11:00:32AM (+0530)

WHERE:
Bangalore

Here's the meetup link. http://www.meetup.com/Bangalore-LessWrongers-Meetup/events/221043422/

Discussion article for the meetup : Bangalore meetup + pi-day wrap party
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 118
by Gondolinian — 2015-03-09T19:05:56.158Z

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 118.

Plans for next chapter release:

Ch. 119 (9800 words) will post on March 10th, 2015 at 11AM Pacific (6PM UTC)
Note that the current chapter count goes to Ch. 122.

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 : Washington, D.C.: Mini Talks
by RobinZ — 2015-03-09T17:55:13.719Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Washington, D.C.: Mini Talks

WHEN:
15 March 2015 03:00:00PM (-0400)

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 give and listen to short (~10-20 min) lectures on assorted topics. As usual, we will congregate between 3:00 to 3:30, begin giving talks at 3:30, and continue as long as people are interested or until closing, whichever comes first.

If you need to show up late or leave early, that's fine. Let us know if you want to take a turn behind the notional podium before/at/after a specific time, or if there are any special materials you want to have.

WMATA has no major track work scheduled; edit: Green Line trains run every 16 minutes; Blue/Silver Line service to the Largo Town Center end of the line will run every 20 minutes; and Yellow Line trains will stop at Mt. Vernon Square instead of Ft. Totten. The Verizon Center calendar for March 15 has a Capitals game vs. Boston starting at 7:30 p.m. (doors open 6:30).

Upcoming meetups:

Mar. 22: Rationalist Taboo (discuss concepts without using the conventional words for them)

Mar. 29: Singing Meetup (weather permitting; Fun & Games will be fallback topic)

Apr. 5: (tentatively) Cherry Blossoms (take a walk and look at the cherry blossoms)

Discussion article for the meetup : Washington, D.C.: Mini Talks
Meetup : Brussels: March meetup (1PM) + Harry Potter MoR Party (6PM)
by Roxolan — 2015-03-09T16:48:58.548Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Brussels: March meetup (1PM) + Harry Potter MoR Party (6PM)

WHEN:
14 March 2015 01:00:00PM (+0100)

WHERE:
Rue des Alexiens 55 1000 Bruxelles

This month we have TWO events:

A standard LessWrong meetup at 1PM at La Fleur en Papier Doré (Rue des Alexiens 55). I've been a bit too busy to figure out a theme, sorry! But expect the usual friendly & intelligent conversation.

A party for the conclusion of Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality! This will be at 6PM at Patterson's flat (Rue Notre Dame du Sommeil 24, 1000 Bruxelles). All are welcome, and we'll likely have a good mix of regulars and brand new faces. Food & drinks provided but extras will be appreciated. Costumes more than welcome. We're expecting 8-ish people. More details at the facebook page. Though not mandatory, if you announce your presence there it will make things simpler for me.

We will meet at 1 pm at "La Fleur en papier doré, close to the Brussels Central station. The meeting will be in English to facilitate both French and Dutch speaking members.

If you are coming for the first time, please consider filling out this one minute form to share your contact information.

The Brussels meetup group communicates through a Google Group.

Meetup announcements are also mirrored on meetup.com

Discussion article for the meetup : Brussels: March meetup (1PM) + Harry Potter MoR Party (6PM)
Meetup : HPMOR wrap party cologne / Cologne LW meetup (restart)
by EGI — 2015-03-09T15:31:57.335Z

Discussion article for the meetup : HPMOR wrap party cologne / Cologne LW meetup (restart)

WHEN:
14 March 2015 04:00:00PM (+0100)

WHERE:
Cologne, Germany

I will host a hpmor party either at Cottas (Dürener Str. 87) or at my home in Weiden (if prefered by majority). Please contact me at marcel_mueller@mail.de. Help is appreciated. Suggested time 4pm until open end. If noone else provides content I will only be there to talk / socialize and possibly a few goodies, since I won't have much time this week. Also, I would like to use this to (re)start a cologne LWmeetup.

Discussion article for the meetup : HPMOR wrap party cologne / Cologne LW meetup (restart)
Assessors that are hard to seduce
by Stuart_Armstrong — 2015-03-09T14:19:55.289Z

A putative new idea for AI control; index here.

This is a stub of an idea, looking at "human in the loop"-type restrictions.

An assessor is a particular type of restriction. It involves a (generally) human agent, who is tasked with observing something (the behaviour of the agent, or maybe the expected outcome of its plans), and then deciding on whether to allow the AI to proceed or not.

Many of the methods suitable for preventing the hacking of restrictions can also be used to protect assessors. If you consider that the AI would have three options: "hold a gun to the assessor's head", "seduce the assessor" and "do what the assessor wants", it's clear that the first two options (the first more clearly than the second) are things that would a) be stupid to do if there were no assessor, and b) are behaviours that are very informative as to whether the assessor exists.

However, there are a few more steps we can take with assessors. First of all, the AI need not know which particular human will be an assessor, forcing it to take general human behaviour into account. This is more effective if the assessing process is not one that allows any real interactions between AI and assessor.

Indeed, the assessor need not be a human: it could be a superintelligent agent itself (a hypothetical one, if need be) that has its own motivation.

Lastly, since the assessors are agents and therefore can reach their own predictions, we could ask for the assessor's impressions to be accurate predictions of what the AI intends to do (again, this could be done by having a hypothetical superintelligence assess the accuracy of the assessors' expected predictions). We'll look at ideas about modelling and model accuracy in a subsequent post.