trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Advice for a Budding Rationalist
by atucker — 2010-11-19T03:10:45.715Z

Most people in the US with internet connections who are reading this site will at some point in their lives graduate high school. I haven't yet, and it seems like what I do afterwards will have a pretty big effect on the rest of my life.*
Given that, I think I should ask for some advice.

Generally,
Any advice? Anything you wish you knew? Disagreement with the premise? (If you disagree, please explain what to do anyway.)

More specific to the site,
Any advice for high schoolers with a rationalist and singularitarian bent? Who are probably looking at going to college?
Anything particularly effective for working against existential risk?
Any fields particularly useful for rationalists to know?
Any fields in which rationalists would be particularly helpful?

This is intended to be a pretty general reference for life advice for the young ones among us. With a college selection bent, probably. If you're in high school and have a specific situation that you want help with/advice for, please reply to this post with that. I think that a most people have specific skills/background they could leverage, so a one-size-fits all approach seems to be somewhat simplistic.

*I understand that I can always change plans later, but there are many many things that seem to require some level of commitment, like college.
Edit:
As Unnamed pointed out, also look at this article about undergraduate course selection.
Yes, a blog.
by Academian — 2010-11-19T01:53:26.991Z

When I recommend LessWrong to people, their gut reaction is usually "What? You think the best existing philosophical treatise on rationality is a blog?"

Well, yes, at the moment I do.

"But why is it not an ancient philosophical manuscript written by a single Very Special Person with no access to the massive knowledge the human race has accumulated over the last 100 years?"

Besides the obvious? Three reasons: idea selection, critical mass, and helpful standards for collaboration and debate.

Idea selection.

Ancient people came up with some amazing ideas, like how to make fire, tools, and languages. Those ideas have stuck around, and become integrated in our daily lives to the point where they barely seem like knowledge anymore. The great thing is that we don't have to read ancient cave writings to be reminded that fire can keep us warm; we simply haven't forgotten. That's why more people agree that fire can heat your home than on how the universe began.

Classical philosophers like Hume came up with some great ideas, too, especially considering that they had no access to modern scientific knowledge. But you don't have to spend thousands of hours reading through their flawed or now-uninteresting writings to find their few truly inspiring ideas, because their best ideas have become modern scientific knowledge. You don't need to read Hume to know about empiricism, because we simply haven't forgotten it... that's what science is now. You don't have to read Kant to think abstractly about Time; thinking about "timelines" is practically built into our language nowadays.

See, society works like a great sieve that remembers good ideas, and forgets some of the bad ones. Plenty of bad ideas stick around because they're viral (self-propagating for reasons other than helpfulness/verifiability), so you can't always trust an idea just because it's old. But that's how any sieve works: it narrows your search. It keeps the stuff you want, and throws away some of the bad stuff so you don't have to look at it.

LessWrong itself is an update patch for philosophy to fix compatibility issues with science and render it more useful. That it would exist now rather than much earlier is no coincidence: right now, it's the gold at the bottom of the pan, because it's taking the idea filtering process to a whole new level. Here's a rough timeline of how LessWrong happened:

Critical mass...
Goals for which Less Wrong does (and doesn't) help
by AnnaSalamon — 2010-11-18T22:37:36.984Z

Related to: Self-Improvement or Shiny Distraction: Why Less Wrong is anti-Instrumental Rationality

We’ve had a lot of good criticism of Less Wrong lately (including Patri’s post above, which contains a number of useful points). But to prevent those posts from confusing newcomers, this may be a good time to review what Less Wrong is useful for.

In particular: I had a conversation last Sunday with a fellow, I’ll call him Jim, who was trying to choose a career that would let him “help shape the singularity (or simply the future of humanity) in a positive way”. He was trying to sort out what was efficient, and he aimed to be careful to have goals and not roles.

So far, excellent news, right? A thoughtful, capable person is trying to sort out how, exactly, to have the best impact on humanity’s future. Whatever your views on the existential risks landscape, it’s clear humanity could use more people like that.

The part that concerned me was that Jim had put a site-blocker on LW (as well as all of his blogs) after reading Patri’s post, which, he said, had “hit him like a load of bricks”. Jim wanted to get his act together and really help the world, not diddle around reading shiny-fun blog comments. But his discussion of how to “really help the world” seemed to me to contain a number of errors[1] -- errors enough that, if he cannot sort them out somehow, his total impact won’t be nearly what it could be. And they were the sort of errors LW could have helped with. And there was no obvious force in his off-line, focused, productive life of a sort that could similarly help.

So, in case it’s useful to others, a review of what LW is useful for.

When you do (and don’t) need epistemic rationality

For some tasks, the world provides rich, inexpensive empirical feedback. In these tasks you hardly need reasoning. Just try the task many ways, steal from the best role-models you can find, and take care to notice what is and isn’t giving you results.

Thus, if you want to learn to sculpt, reading Less Wrong is a bad way to go about it. Better to find some clay and a hands-on sculpting course. The situation is similar for small talk, cooking, selling, programming, and many other useful skills.

Unfortunately, most of us also...
The Benefits of Two Religious Educations
by HonoreDB — 2010-11-18T21:42:50.139Z

It seems fitting that my first post here be an origin story, of sorts. Like any origin story, it is overly reductionistic and attributes a single cause to an overdetermined phenomenon. There's an old Spider-Man comic that claims that even if he hadn't been bitten by a radioactive spider, and even if he hadn't caused his uncle's death through inaction, Peter Parker would still have become a superhero thanks to his engineering talent and strong moral fiber. Nevertheless, I find it compelling to say that I became a skeptic (and from there a rationalist and consequentialist) because from an early age I attended two different religious schools at the same time.

From age six, I spent my weekdays at a Christian independent school. From around the same time, I went to a Jewish "Sunday school" (and to Jewish religious services some Saturday evenings). I imagine this is a rare, bizarre-sounding way to grow up. In Jewish communities in rural Pennsylvania it's quite common.

This led to a predictable phenomenon. Adults, teachers in similar positions of respect and authority, were (confidently and earnestly!) making different, contradictory assertions about extremely important subjects. People whom I respected equally had vastly different concepts of how the universe worked, and I was constantly reminded of this. The inference was inescapable: teachers were often wrong and I would have to use my own judgement. I remember briefly theorizing that there were simply two different gods, the Old Testament one and the New Testament one (who was also Gaia), which would certainly help reconcile everything.

By the time I was ten, I questioned everything a teacher said, in any subject, to a fault (e.g., I refused to learn the backhand in tennis because I couldn't see the point). By the time I was twelve, I confidently identified as an atheist. My parents were still religious Jews, but they didn't really care as long as they could bully me into performing the rituals. We spent more time arguing about AI, as it happened, than the existence of God (my parents were both Searle-ists). By the time I was fifteen, I had decided to drop out of school and educate myself, etc.

I think I would have gotten there anyway. But I find it appealing to speculate that I got there much ...
Another rationalist protagonist takes on "magic"
by  — 2010-11-18T20:25:06.045Z

Along with the rest of the lesswrong community, I've been enjoying "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality."

I would like to heartily recommend another series with similar themes:

The Steerswoman's Road, by Rosemary Kirstein

Like HP:MOR, we have a protagonist applying scientific methods to understand "magic". Unlike HP:MOR, this protagonist doesn't have the benefit of an accumulated body of knowledge on science and rationality (the setting is medieval era technology, more or less). Refreshingly and realistically, though, her pursuits are part of a larger collaboration, the "steerswomen", a group devoted to furthering and freely disseminating human knowledge. Unlike HP, the protagonist has to be confused (about things we as readers already know) not just for minutes, but for years. We are painstakingly led through every step and misstep of her reasoning.
"Target audience" size for the Less Wrong sequences
by Louie — 2010-11-18T12:21:09.504Z

[Note: My last thread was poorly worded in places and gave people the wrong impression that I was interested in talking about growing and shaping the Less Wrong community. I was really hoping to talk about something a bit different. Here's my revision with a completely redone methodology.]

How many people would invest their time to read the LW sequences if they were introduced to them?
So in other words, I’m trying to estimate the theoretical upper-bound on the number of individuals world-wide who have the ability, desire, and time to read intellectual material online and who also have at least some pre-disposition to wanting to think rationally.
I’m not trying to evangelize to unprepared, “reach” candidates who maybe, possibly would like to read parts of the sequences. I’m just looking for likely size of the core audience who already has the ability, the time, and doesn’t need to jump through any major hoops to stomach the sequences (like deconverting from religion or radically changing their habits -- like suddenly devoting more of their time to using computers or reading.)
The reason I’m investigating this is because I want to build more rationalists. I know some smart people whose opinions I respect (like Michael Vassar) who contend we shouldn’t spend much time trying to reach more people with the sequences. They think the majority of people smart enough to follow the sequences and who do weird, eccentric things like “read in their spare time”, are already here. This is my second attempt to figure this out in the last couple days, and unlike my rough 2M person figure I got with my previous, hasty analysis, this more detailed analysis leaves me with a much lower world-wide target audience of only 17,000.

Filter

Total Population

Filters Away (%)

Everyone

6,880,000,000

Speaks English + Internet Access

536,000,000

92.2%

Atheist/Agnostic

40,000,000

92.55%

Believes in evolution | Atheist/Agnostic

30,400,000

24%

“NT” (Rational) MBTI

3,952,000

87%

IQ 130+ (SD 15; US/UK-Atheist-NT 108 IQ)

284,544

92.8%

30 min/day reading or on computers

16,930

94.05%

Yep, that’s right. There are basically only a few thousand relatively bright people in the world who think reason makes sens...
Weird characters in the Sequences
by Paul Crowley — 2010-11-18T08:27:20.737Z

When the sequences were copied from Overcoming Bias to Less Wrong, it looks like something went very wrong with the character encoding. I found the following sequences of HTML entities in words in the sequences:

&#xE2;&#x80;&#x99;&#x102;&#x15E; d?tre

&#xC5;&#xAB; M?lamadhyamaka

&#x102;&#x15A; Ph?drus

&#x102;&#x2D8;&#xC2;&#x80;&#xC2;&#x94; arbitrator?i window?and

&#x102;&#x15E; b?te m?me

&#xE2;&#x80;&#xA6; over?and

&#xE23;&#xE01; H?jek

&#x102;&#x83;&#xC2;&#x17A; G?nther

&#x102;&#x160; fianc?e proteg?s d?formation d?colletage am?ricaine d?sir

&#x102;&#x83;&#xC2;&#x17B; na?ve na?vely

&#x139;&#x8D; sh?nen

&#xC3;&#xB6; Schr?dinger L?b

&#xE22;&#xE07; ?ion

&#x102;&#x83;&#xC2;&#x15B; Schr?dinger H?lldobler

&#x102;&#x17A; D?sseldorf G?nther

&#xE2;&#x80;&#x93; ? Church? miracles?in Church?Turing

&#xE2;&#x80;&#x99; doesn?t he?s what?s let?s twin?s aren?t I?ll they?d ?s you?ve else?s EY?s Whate?er punish?d There?s Caledonian?s isn?t harm?s attack?d I?m that?s Google?s arguer?s Pascal?s don?t shouldn?t can?t form?d controll?d Schiller?s object?s They?re whatever?s everybody?s That?s Tetlock?s S?il it?s one?s didn?t Don?t Aslan?s we?ve We?ve Superman?s clamour?d America?s Everybody?s people?s you?d It?s state?s Harvey?s Let?s there?s Einstein?s won?t

&#x102;&#x104; Alm?si Zolt?n

&#x102;&#x164; pre?mpting re?valuate

&#x102;&#x2D8;&#xC2;&#x89;&#xC2;&#xA0; ?

&#x102;&#xA8; l?se m?ne accurs?d

&#xE23;&#xE10; Ver?andi

&#xE2;&#x86;&#x92; high?low low?high

&#x102;&#x2D8;&#xC2;&#x80;&#xC2;&#x99; doesn?t

&#xC4;&#x81; k?rik Siddh?rtha

&#xE23;&#xE16; Sj?berg G?delian L?b Schr?dinger G?gel G?del co?rdinate W?hler K?nigsberg P?lzl

&#x102;&#x17B; na?vet

&#xC2;&#xA0; I?understood ? I?was

&#x102;&#x15B; Schr?dinger

&#x102;&#x17D; pla?t

&#xFA;&#xF1; N?ez

&#x139;&#x82; Ceg?owski

&#xE2;&#x80;&#x94; PEOPLE?and smarter?supporting to?at problem?and probability?then valid?to opportunity?of time?in true?I view?wishing Kyi?and ones?such crudely?model stupid?which that?larger aside?from Ironically?but intelligence?such flower?but medicine?as

&#xE2;&#x8...
IQ Scores Fail to Predict Academic Performance in Children With Autism
by InquilineKea — 2010-11-18T03:34:12.148Z

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101117141514.htm

I find this study extremely interesting. Before anyone starts to spout anti-IQ rhetoric - let me say that I realize that the predictive effects of IQ (which are extensively documented in research journals) are only as good as they are simply because most people aren't that psychologically different from each other (owing both to genetic factors and socialization), which will natural reduce the variance in performance due to other factors (and increase the associated variance in performance attributed to IQ). In fact, one of the major findings in the IQ literature is that in the general population, the primary sources of intelligence are highly correlated with each other. Verbal intelligence is correlated with mathematical intelligence, and both of those are are even highly correlated with reaction times. But among people who are autistic, this finding may be less accurate than it is among neurotypicals. Some of us Aspies are exceptionally talented at certain things while simultaneously being incredibly incompetent at other things.

Of course, findings only apply to the population at large and may not apply to specific subsets of people. Most research shows that people who sleep more get higher grades - but this is definitely not true for certain subgroups of people - there are plenty of intelligent people at MIT/Caltech who sleep far less than the average student in a state school. The same logic applies to skipping classes and lower grades (Caltech's classes have notoriously high absence rates since the students there are independent studiers). Similarly, IQ tests (and other assessments normalized to the general population) may not necessarily predict performance among certain subgroups of people, especially those who are non-neurotypical. This logic could apply to GPAs and SAT scores too (I know a mathematical genius with asperger's at UChicago, who only got 600s on his SATs for example). And I also suspect that it may apply to subgroups of people with Attention Deficit Disorder. There's s a good chance that other factors may interfere with IQ, which may increase variance in performance due to other environmental factors (and decrease variance in performance due to autism).And simply increasing the variation in environment will naturally reduce the variation in IQ due to comparatively immalleable ...
Rationalist Diplomacy, Game 2, Game Over
by Randaly — 2010-11-18T03:19:48.087Z

Note: The title refers to the upcoming turn.

OK, here's the promised second game of diplomacy. The game name is 'Rationalist Diplomacy Game 2.'

Kevin was Prime Minister of Great Britain
AlexMennen is President of France
tenshiko is Kaiser of Germany
Alexandros was King of Italy until his retirement
WrongBot is Emperor of Austria
Thausler is Czar of Russia
Hugh Ristik is Sultan of Turkey

Randaly is the GM, and can be reached at nojustnoperson@gmail.com

Peace For Our Time!

The leaders of the three surviving nations, France, Russia, and Turkey, agreed to a peace treaty in late August, bringing an end to this destructive conflict. Crowds across Europe broke out into spontaneous celebration, as national leaders began to account for the vast costs- human and monetary- of the wars.

All orders should be sent to nojustnoperson@gmail.com with an easy-to-read title like "Rationalist Diplomacy Game 2: Russian Orders Spring 1901". Only the LAST set of orders sent will be counted, so feel free to change your mind or to do something sneaky like sending in a fake set of orders cc your ally, and then sending in your real orders later. I'm not going to be too picky on exactly how you phrase your orders, but I prefer standard Diplomacy terminology like "F kie -> hel". New players - remember that if you send two units to the same space, you MUST specify which is attacking and which is supporting. If you make a mistake there or anywhere else, I will probably email you and ask you which you meant, but if I don't have time you'll just be out of luck.

ETA: HughRistik would like to underscore that, under the standard house rules, all draws are unranked.

Past maps can be viewed here; the game history can be viewed here.
Suspended Animation Inc. accused of incompetence
by CronoDAS — 2010-11-18T00:20:03.481Z

I recently found something that may be of concern to some of the readers here.

On her blog, Melody Maxim, former employee of Suspended Animation, provider of "standby services" for Cryonics Institute customers, describes several examples of gross incompetence in providing those services. Specifically, spending large amounts of money on designing and manufacturing novel perfusion equipment when cheaper, more effective devices that could be adapted to serve their purposes already existed, hiring laymen to perform difficult medical procedures who then botched them, and even finding themselves unable to get their equipment loaded onto a plane because it exceeded the weight limit.

An excerpt from one of her posts, "Why I Believe Cryonics Should Be Regulated":

It is no longer possible for me to believe what I witnessed was an isolated bit of corruption, and the picture gets bigger, by the year...

For forty years, cryonics "research" has primarily consisted of laymen attempting to build equipment that already exists, and laymen trying to train other laymen how to perform the tasks of paramedics, perfusionists, and vascular surgeons...much of this time with the benefactors having ample funding to provide the real thing, in regard to both equipment and personnel. Organizations such as Alcor and Suspended Animation, which want to charge $60,000 to $150,000, (not to mention other extra charges, or years worth of membership dues), are not capable of preserving brains and/or bodies in a condition likely to be viable in the future. People associated with these companies, have been known to encourage people, not only to leave hefty life insurance policies with their organizations listed as the beneficiaries, to pay for these amateur surgical procedures, but to leave their estates and irrevocable trusts to cryonics organizations.

...

Again, I have no problem with people receiving their last wishes. If people want to be cryopreserved, I think they should have that right. BUT...companies should not be allowed to deceive people who wish to be cryopreserved. They should not be allowed to publish photos of what looks like medical professionals performing surgery, but in actuality, is a group of laymen playing doctor with a dead body...people whose incompetency will result in their clients being left warm (and decaying), for many hours while they struggle to perform a vascular cannul

...
Imperfect Levers
by blogospheroid — 2010-11-17T19:12:41.564Z

Related to : Lost Purposes, The importance of Goodhart's Law, Homo Hypocritus, SIAI's scary idea, Value Deathism

Summary : Whenever human beings seek to achieve goals far beyond their individual ability, they use leverage of some kind of another. Creating organizations to achieve goals is a very powerful source of leverage. However due to their nature, organizations are imperfect levers and the primary purpose is often lost. The inertia of present forms and processes dominates beyond its useful period. The present system of the world has many such imperfect organizations in power and any of them developing near-general intelligence without significant redesign of their utility function can be a source of existential risk/values risk.

When human beings seek to achieve large ambitious goals, it is natural to use some kind of leverage, some kind of ability to multiply one's power. Financial leverage, taking debt, is one of the most common means of leverage as it turns a small profit or spread into a large one. An even more powerful means of leverage is to bring people together and creating organizations to achieve the purpose that one had set out to achieve.

However, unlike the cleanliness of financial leverage(though not without problems of its own), using organizational leverage is messy, especially if the organization is created to achieve goals that are subtle and complex. There is an entire body of management literature that tries to align the interest of principals and agents. But most agents do not avoid Goodhart's law. As organizations grow, the mechanization of their incentive structures increases. Agents will do what they have been incentivized to do.

An example

Recently, we saw an awesome demonstration of great futility, Quantitative Easing II. The purchase of a large number of US government bonds by the US Fed in the hope of creating more prosperity. People feeling poor due to the bursting of the housing bubble are definitely not the recipients of this money. And these are the people who eventually have to start producing and consuming again for this recession to end. Where would they attain the money from? The expected causal chain (econ experts can correct me if I'm wrong here) went like this

Buying US bonds - Creating the expectation of inflation in the market - Leading to banks wanting to lend out their reserves to people - leading to the people...