trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Meetup : Moscow meetup: discussion on community evolution; power and culture talk; rational games
by Slava Matyukhin — 2015-11-19T18:22:38.442Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Moscow meetup: discussion on community evolution; power and culture talk; rational games

WHEN:
23 November 2015 02:00:00PM (+0300)

WHERE:
ул. Большая Дорогомиловская, д.5к2

Regular bi-weekly meetup is happening this Sunday again. (We skipped a week because of upcoming Skepticon.)

We'll have a single talk, a big discussion on the future of our community, and several rational games.

Here's a full list:

Eugene will talk about Foucault and Barthes, power, truth and "culture".

I'll facilitate the Big Discussion. We'll talk about what we have right now, what kind of future we as a community would like to achieve (this includes both the desired internal state of the community and our goals in the outside world), and identify those of us would like to take some action.

alexander230 will conduct a Zendo game.

And then alexander230 will also conduct a Training Game.

Pad with the schedule.

BTW, we're also gathering a LW hackathon on Saturday.

PS: If you're joining us for the first time, read this, it might answer some of your questions.

Discussion article for the meetup : Moscow meetup: discussion on community evolution; power and culture talk; rational games
Rationality Reading Group: Part N: A Human's Guide to Words
by Gram_Stone — 2015-11-18T23:50:57.236Z

This is part of a semi-monthly reading group on Eliezer Yudkowsky's ebook, Rationality: From AI to Zombies. For more information about the group, see the announcement post.

Welcome to the Rationality reading group. This fortnight we discuss Part N: A Human's Guide to Words (pp. 677-801) and Interlude: An Intuitive Explanation of Bayes's Theorem (pp. 803-826). This post summarizes each article of the sequence, linking to the original LessWrong post where available.

N. A Human's Guide to Words

153. The Parable of the Dagger - A word fails to connect to reality in the first place. Is Socrates a framster? Yes or no?

154. The Parable of Hemlock - Your argument, if it worked, could coerce reality to go a different way by choosing a different word definition. Socrates is a human, and humans, by definition, are mortal. So if you defined humans to not be mortal, would Socrates live forever?

You try to establish any sort of empirical proposition as being true "by definition". Socrates is a human, and humans, by definition, are mortal. So is it a logical truth if we empirically predict that Socrates should keel over if he drinks hemlock? It seems like there are logically possible, non-self-contradictory worlds where Socrates doesn't keel over - where he's immune to hemlock by a quirk of biochemistry, say. Logical truths are true in all possible worlds, and so never tell you which possible world you live in - and anything you can establish "by definition" is a logical truth.

You unconsciously slap the conventional label on something, without actually using the verbal definition you just gave. You know perfectly well that Bob is "human", even though, on your definition, you can never call Bob "human" without first observing him to be mortal.

155. Words as Hidden Inferences - The mere presence of words can influence thinking, sometimes misleading it.

The act of labeling something with a word, disguises a challengable inductive inference you are making. If the last 11 egg-shaped objects drawn have been blue, and the last 8 cubes drawn have been red, it is a matter of induction to say this rule will hold in the future. But if you call the blue eggs "bleggs" and the red cubes "rubes", you may reach into the barrel, feel an egg shape, and think "O...
The Market for Lemons: Quality Uncertainty on Less Wrong
by signal — 2015-11-18T22:06:56.417Z

Tl;dr: Articles on LW are, if unchecked (for now by you), heavily distorting a useful view (yours) on what matters.

[This is (though in part only) a five-year update to Patrissimo’s article Self-Improvement or Shiny Distraction: Why Less Wrong is anti-Instrumental Rationality. However, I wrote most of this article before I became aware of its predecessor. Then again, this reinforces both our articles' main critique.]

I claim that rational discussions in person, conferences, forums, social media, and blogs suffer from adverse selection and promote unwished-for phenomena such as the availability heuristic. Bluntly stated, they do (as all other discussions) have a tendency to support ever worse, unimportant, or wrong opinions and articles. More importantly, articles of high relevancy regarding some topics are conspicuously missing. This can be also observed on Less Wrong. It is not the purpose of this article to determine the exact extent of this problem. It shall merely bring to attention that “what you get is not what you should see." However, I am afraid this effect is largely undervalued.

This result is by design and therefore to be expected. A rational agent will, by definition, post incorrect, incomplete, or not at all in the following instances:

Cost-benefit analysis: A rational agent will not post information that reduces his utility by enabling others to compete better and, more importantly, by causing him any effort unless some gain (status, monetary, happiness,…) offsets the former effect. Example: Have you seen articles by Mark Zuckerberg? But I also argue that for random John Doe the personal cost-benefit-analysis from posting an article is negative. Even more, the value of your time should approach infinity if you really drink the LW Kool-Aid, however, this shall be the topic of a subsequent article. I suspect the theme of this article may also be restated as a free-riding problem as it postulates the non-production or under-production of valuable articles and other contributions.

Conflicting with law: Topics like drugs (in the western world) and maybe politics or sexuality in other parts of the world are biased due to the risk of persecution, punishment, extortion, etc. And many topics such as in the spheres of rationality, transhumanism, effective altruism, are at least highly sensitive, especially

...
Marketing Rationality
by Viliam — 2015-11-18T13:43:02.802Z

What is your opinion on rationality-promoting articles by Gleb Tsipursky / Intentional Insights? Here is what I think:

Trying to teach someone to think rationally is a long process -- maybe even impossible for some people. It's about explaining many biases that people do naturally, demonstrating the futility of "mysterious answers" on gut level; while the student needs the desire to become stronger, the humility of admitting "I don't know" together with the courage to give a probabilistic answer anyway; resisting the temptation to use the new skills to cleverly shoot themselves in the foot, keeping the focus on the "nameless virtue" instead of signalling (even towards the fellow rationalists). It is a LW lesson that being a half-rationalist can hurt you, and being a 3/4-rationalist can fuck you up horribly. And the online clickbait articles seem like one of the worst choices for a medium to teach rationality. (The only worse choice that comes to my mind would be Twitter.)

On the other hand, imagine that you have a magical button, and if you press it, all not-sufficiently-correct-by-LW-standards mentions of rationality (or logic, or science) would disappear from the world. Not to be replaced by something more lesswrongish, but simply by anything else that usually appears in the given medium. Would pressing that button make the world a more sane place? What would have happened if someone had pressed that button hundred years ago? In other words, I'm trying to avoid the "nirvana fallacy" -- I am not asking whether those articles are the perfect vehicle for x-rationality, but rather, whether they are a net benefit or a net harm. Because if they are a net benefit, then it's better having them, isn't it?

Assuming that the articles are not merely ignored (where "ignoring" includes "thousands of people with microscopic attention spans read them and then forget them immediately), the obvious failure mode is people getting wrong ideas, or adopting "rationality" as an attire. Is it really that wrong? Aren't people already having absurdly wrong ideas about rationality? Remember all the "straw Vulcans" produced by the movie industry; Terminator, The Big Bang Theory... Rationality already is associated with being a sociopathic villain, or a pathetic nerd. This is where we are now; and the "rationality" clickbait, however sketchy, cannot make it worse. Actually, it can make a...
Inverse reinforcement learning on self, pre-ontology-change
by Stuart_Armstrong — 2015-11-18T13:23:29.000Z

Inverse reinforcement learning is the challenge of constructing a value system that "explains" the behaviour of another agent. Part of the idea is to have algorithms deduce human observations from human behaviours.

It struck me that this could be used by the agent on themselves. Imagine we had a diamond-maximising agent, who believed something like classical Greek "science", and behaved to accumulate the maximal amount of these shiny crystals. However, they have an ontology change, and learn quantum physics. This completely messes up their view of what a "diamond" is.

However, what if they replayed their previous behaviour, and tried to deduce what possible utility function, in a quantum world, could explain what they had done? They would be trying to fit a quantum-world-aware utility to the decisions of a non-quantum-world-aware being.

This could possibly result in a useful extension of the original motivation to the new setup (at least, it would guarantee similar behaviour in similar circumstances). There are many challenges - most especially that a quantum-aware being has far more knowledge about how to affect the world, and thus far more options - but they seem the usual sort of inverse reinforcement learning (partial knowledge, noise, etc...)
Reflective oracles and superationality
by Stuart_Armstrong — 2015-11-18T12:30:06.221Z

This grew out of an exchange with Jessica Taylor during MIRI’s recent visit to the FHI. Still getting my feel for the fixed point approach; let me know of any errors.

People at MIRI have recently proved you can use reflective oracles so that agents can use them to reason about other agents (including other agents with oracles) and themselves, and consistently reach Nash equilibriums. But can we do better than that?

To recap, a reflective oracle is a machine O such that:

P(A()=1)>p implies O(A,p)=1

P(A()=0)>1-p implies O(A,p)=0

This works even if A() includes a call to the oracle within its code. Now, all the algorithms used here will be clearly terminating, so we’ll have the other two implications as well (eg (P(A()=0)>p implies O(A,p)=0). And given any δ, we can, with order log(1/δ) questions, establish the probability of A() to within δ. Thus we will write O(A()==a)=p to mean that O(A()==a,(n-1)δ/2)=1 and O(A()==a,(n+1)δ/2)=0, where (n-1)δ/2 < p < (n+1)δ/2.

Note also that O can be used to output a probabilistic output (to within δ), so outputting specific mixed strategies is possible.

If p1 and p2 are two probability distributions/strategies over possible agent outputs, define them to be “δ-Pareto” if they are within δ of Pareto strategies. We can differentiate (p1,p2) for small changes in strategy, by infinitesimally increasing the weight of some pure strategies o1 and o2 (note that for each strategy, we actually have one less independent degree of freedom than the number of pure strategies, since probabilities must sum to 1). We’ll say D(p1,p2)(o1,o2) is Pareto if we are sure that it is an improvement for both players for all possible (p1’,p2’) within the respective δ ranges of (p1,p2).

If p1 and p2 are two probability distributions over possible agent outputs, we can consider

We’ll make the following two assumptions:

The players do not make use of each other’s internal structures, just of the possible outputs and the calls to O().

The players do not have access to a joint source of randomness.

So now fix 1 >> ε >> δ > 0, assume the problem is the Prisoner’s dilemma as given in the previous figure, let Q() be the other player, and consider the following algorithm:

...
Meetup : Melbourne Social Meetup - November
by Chriswaterguy — 2015-11-18T10:32:50.281Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Melbourne Social Meetup - November

WHEN:
20 November 2015 06:30:00PM (+1100)

WHERE:
347 Flinders Lane, Melbourne, Vic, Australia

Our November Social Meetup is on again this Friday! (3rd Friday of the month as always.) Come & say hi for the first time, or for the 50th time. Hope to see you there.
It's a casual get-together where we chat about interesting topics and sometimes play tabletop games (optional, and only if someone brings a game).
Where? The Bull & Bear Tavern, 347 Flinders Ln, Melbourne. (If you're walking from Elizabeth St, it's most of the way to Queen St, on your left. Go down one flight of stairs to the bistro area.)
When? From 6:30pm until late. Start and finish times are very loose - feel free to show up whenever
Contact? If you have any questions, just text or call me (Chris) on 0439471632
Dinner? The Bull & Bear serves regular pub food, and the kitchen closes around 9pm. We have a tradition of going to Stalactites (24 hour Greek restaurant) for a late-night souvlaki after the meetup, if you'd like to wait!

Discussion article for the meetup : Melbourne Social Meetup - November
Non-communicable Evidence
by Adam Zerner — 2015-11-17T03:46:01.503Z

In this video, Douglas Crockford (JavaScript MASTER) says:

So I think programming would not be possible without System I; without the gut. Now, I have absolutely no evidence to support that statement, but my gut tells me it's true, so I believe it.

1

I don't think he has "absolutely no evidence". In worlds where DOUGLAS CROCKFORD has a gut feeling about something related to programming, how often does that gut feeling end up being correct? Probably a lot more than 50% of the time. So according to Bayes, his gut feeling is definitely evidence.

The problem isn't that he lacks evidence. It's that he lacks communicable evidence. He can't say "I believe A because X, Y and Z." The best he could do is say, "just trust me, I have a feeling about this".

Well, "just trust me, I have a feeling about this" does qualify as evidence if you have a good track record, but my point is that he can't communicate the rest of the evidence his brain used to produce the resulting belief.

2

How do you handle a situation where you're having a conversation with someone and they say, "I can't explain why I believe X; I just do."

Well, as far as updating beliefs, I think the best you could do is update on the track record of the person. I don't see any way around it. For example, you should update your beliefs when you hear Douglas Crockford say that he has a gut feeling about something related to programming. But I don't see how you could do any further updating of your beliefs. You can't actually see the evidence he used, so you can't use it to update your beliefs. If you do, the Bayes Police will come find you.

Perhaps it's also worth trying to dig the evidence out of the other persons subconscious.

If the person has a good track record, maybe you could say, "Hmm, you have a good track record so I'm sad to hear that you're struggling to recall why it is you believe what you do. I'd be happy to wait for you to spend some time trying to dig it up."

Maybe there are some techniques that can be used to "dig evidence out of one's subconscious". I don't know of any, but maybe they exist.

3

Ok, now let's talk about what you shouldn't do. You shouldn't say, "Well if you can't provide any evidence, you shouldn't believe what you do." The problem with that statement is that it assumes that the person has "no evidence". This was addressed in Section 1. It's akin t...
Bay Area Solstice 2015
by MarieLa — 2015-11-17T00:34:06.841Z

The winter solstice marks the darkest day of the year, a time to reflect on the past, present, and future. For several years and in many cities, Rationalists, Humanists, and Transhumanists have celebrated the solstice as a community, forming bonds to aid our work in the world.

Last year, more than one hundred people in the Bay Area came together to celebrate the Solstice. This year, we will carry on the tradition. Join us for an evening of song and story in the candlelight as we follow the triumphs and hardships of humanity.

The event itself is a community performance. There will be approximately two hours of songs and speeches, and a chance to eat and talk before and after. Death will be discussed. The themes are typically Humanist and Transhumanist, with a general audience that tends to be those who have found this site interesting, or care a lot about making our future better. There will be mild social pressure to sing along to songs.

When: December 12 at 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM

Where: Humanist Hall, 390 27th St, Oakland, CA 94612

Get tickets here. Bitcoin donation address: 1ARz9HYD45Midz9uRCA99YxDVnsuYAVPDk

Sign up to bring food here.

Feel free to message me if you'd like to talk about the direction the Solstice is taking, things you like, or things you didn't like. Also, please let me know if you'd like to volunteer.
Future of Life Institute is hiring
by Vika — 2015-11-17T00:34:03.708Z

I am a co-founder of the Future of Life Institute based in Boston, and we are looking to fill two job openings that some LessWrongers might be interested in. We are a mostly volunteer-run organization working to reduce catastrophic and existential risks, and increase the chances of a positive future for humanity. Please consider applying and pass this posting along to anyone you think would be a good fit!

PROJECT COORDINATOR

Technology has given life the opportunity to flourish like never before - or to self-destruct. The Future of Life Institute is a rapidly growing non-profit organization striving for the former outcome. We are fortunate to be supported by an inspiring group of people, including Elon Musk, Jaan Tallinn and Stephen Hawking, and you may have heard of our recent efforts to keep artificial intelligence beneficial.

You are idealistic, hard-working and well-organized, and want to help our core team carry out a broad range of projects, from organizing events to coordinating media outreach. Living in the greater Boston area is a major advantage, but not an absolute requirement.

If you are excited about this opportunity, then please send an email to jobs@futureoflife.org with your cv and a brief statement of why you want to work with us. The title of your email must be 'Project coordinator'.

NEWS WEBSITE EDITOR

There is currently huge public interest in the question of how upcoming technology (especially artificial intelligence) may transform our world, and what should be done to seize opportunities and reduce risks.

You are idealistic and ambitious, and want to lead our effort to transform our fledgling news site into the number one destination for anyone seeking up-to-date and in-depth information on this topic, and anybody eager to join what is emerging as one of the most important conversations of our time.

You love writing and have the know-how and drive needed to grow and promote a website. You are self-motivated and enjoy working independently rather than being closely mentored. You are passionate about this topic, and look forward to the opportunity to engage with our second-to-none global network of experts and use it to generate ideas and add value to the site. You look forward to developing and executing your vision for the website using the resources at your disposal, which include both access to experts and funds for commissioning articles...
Open thread, Nov. 16 - Nov. 22, 2015
by MrMind — 2015-11-16T08:03:11.515Z

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.
Dark, not colorless
by So8res — 2015-11-16T02:00:00.000Z
Link: https://mindingourway.com/dark-not-colorless/

The last arc of posts has been about how to handle a dour universe. Become unable to despair, learn to see the darkness rather than flinching from it, learn to choose between bad and worse without suffering. Learn to live in a grim world without becoming grim yourself, learn to hear bad news without suffering, and stop needing to know your actions were acceptable. Come to terms with the fact you may lose, use the darkness as a source of fuel, and let go of dreams of total victory. These are the tools I use to tap into intrinsic motivation, in a precarious world where the problems are larger than I am.

Where others see a hurting world and feel guilty for not doing enough to help it, I see a hurting world and feed my own resolve. Instead of feeling guilty for not working until I drop, I recognize the psychological impossibility and resolve to do everything I can within my mortal constraints. For me, at least, this internal drive is more robust and reliable than guilt motivation.

This brings us to the end of the penultimate arc of the "replacing guilt" series of posts, which I began many months ago, and takes us into the final arc. The first arc was about addressing the listless guilt that comes from ignoring a part of yourself that wants to be doing something more. The second arc was about eliminating the feeling of obligation, and fighting for something you care about only because you care about it. The third arc was about coming to terms with your limitations and learning to optimize within them, rather than feeling guilty because of them. This post concludes the fourth arc, about living in a dark universe and tapping into resolve instead of guilt.

The fifth and final arc is about what you do next. Once you've removed guilt and replaced it with intrinsic drive — both cold resolve and hot desire to make the future bright — what do you do next? What thought patterns allow one to turn these feelings into actions, rather than feelings of frustration and impotence?

I'll explore some of my answers to those questions in the coming handful of posts. But before then, I have one reminder I'd like to pass along.

Among all this talk of coming to terms with a dark and dour world, I ask you to remember that the world is dark, but it is not colorless.

I have seen many a friend attempt to see the dark world and then despair (for they are too small and the problems too large), and...