Nathan Young's Shortform

Nice.

He talked to Gladstone AI founders a few weeks ago; AGI risks were mentioned but not in much depth.

Obvious and "shallow" suggestion. Whoever goes on needs to be "classically charismatic" to appeal to a mainstream audience. 

Potentially this means someone from policy rather than technical research. 

Your post on journalists is, as I suspected, a lot better.

I bounced off the post about mapping discussions because the post didn't make clear what potential it might have to be useful to me. The post on journalists, which drew me in and quickly made clear what its use would be: informing me of how journalists use conversations with them.

The implied claims that theory should be worth less than building or that time on task equals usefulness are both wrong. We are collectively very confused, so running around building stuff before getting less confused isn't always the best use of time.

I was relating pretty similar experiences here [LW(p) · GW(p)], albeit with more of a “lol post karma is stupid amiright?” vibe than a “this is a problem we should fix” vibe.

Your journalist thing is an easy-to-read blog post that strongly meshes with a popular rationalist tribal belief (i.e., “boo journalists”). Obviously those kinds of posts are going to get lots and lots of upvotes, and thus posts that lack those properties can get displaced from the frontpage. I have no idea what can be done about that problem, except that we can all individually try to be mindful about which posts we’re reading and upvoting (or strong-upvoting) and why.

(This is a pro tanto argument for having separate karma-voting and approval-voting for posts, I think.)

And simultaneously, we writers should try not to treat the lesswrong frontpage as our one and only plan for getting what we write in front of our target audience. (E.g. you yourself have other distribution channels.)

I haven't read either post, but maybe this problem reduces partly to more technical posts getting less views, and thus less karma? One problem with even great technical posts is that very few readers can evaluate that such a post is indeed great. And if you can't tell whether a post is accurate, then it can feel irresponsible to upvote it. Even if your technical post is indeed great, it's not clear that a policy of "upvote all technical posts I can't judge myself" would make great technical posts win in terms of karma.

A second issue I'm just noticing is that the first post contains lots of text-heavy screenshots, and that has a bunch of downsides for engagement. Like, the blue font in the first screenshot is very small and thus hard to read. I read stuff in a read-it-later app (called Readwise Reader), incl. with text-to-speech, and neither the app nor the TTS work great with such images. Also, such images usually don't respect dark mode on either LW or other apps. You can't use LW's inline quote comments. And so on and so forth. Screenshots work better in a presentation, but not particularly well in a full essay.

Another potential issue is that the first post doesn't end on "Tell me what you think" (= invites discussion and engagement), but rather with a Thanks section (does anyone ever read those?) and then a huge skimmable section of Full screenshots.

I'm also noticing that the LW version of the first post is lacking the footnotes from the Substack version.

EDIT: And the title for the second post seems way better. Before clicking on either post, I have an idea what the second one is about, and none whatsoever what the first one is about. So why would I even click on the latter? Would the readers you're trying to reach with that post even know what you mean by "mapping discussions"?

EDIT2: And when I hear "process", I think of mandated employee trainings, not of software solutions, so the title is misleading to me, too. Even "A new website for mapping discussions" or "We built a website for mapping discussions" would already sound more accurate and interesting to me, though I still wouldn't know what the "mapping discussions" part is about.

Well, karma is not a perfect tool. It is good at keeping good stuff above zero and bad stuff below zero, by distributed effort. It is not good at quantifying how good or how bad the stuff is.

Solving alignment = positive karma. Cute kitten = positive karma. Ugly kitten = negative karma. Promoting homeopathy = negative karma.

It is a good tool for removing homeopathy and ugly kittens. Without it, we would probably have more of those. So despite all the disadvantages, I want the karma system to stay. Until perhaps we invent something better.

I think we currently don't have a formal tool for measuring "important" as a thing separate from "interesting" or "pleasant to read". The best you can get is someone quoting you approvingly.

Fwiw I loved your journalist post and I never even saw your other post (until now).

Often, you write something short that ends up being valuable. That doesn't mean you should despair about your longer and harder work being less valuable. Like if you could spend 40 hours a week writing quick 5-hour posts that are as well-received as the one you wrote, that would be amazing, but I don't think anyone can do that because the circumstances have to line up just right, and you can't count on that happening. So you have to spend most of your time doing harder and predictably-less-impactful work.

(I just left some feedback for the mapping discussion post on the post itself.)

Advice for journalists was a bit more polemic which I think naturally leads to more engagement. But I'd like to say that I strongly upvoted the mapping discussions post and played around with the site quite a bit when it was first posted - it's really valuable to me.

Karma's a bit of a blunt tool - yes I think it's good to have posts with broad appeal but some posts are going to be comparatively more useful to a smaller group of people, and that's OK too. 

Separate feedback / food for thought: You mention that your post on mapping discussions is a summary of months of work, and that the second post took 5h to write and received far more karma. But did you spend at least 5h on writing the first one, too?

Why does it confuse you? The attention something gets doesn't depend strongly on its quality, but on how accessible it is.

If I get a lot of karma/upvotes/thumbs/hearts/whatever online, then I feel bad, because I would have written something poor.
My best comments are usually ignored, with the occasional reply from somebody who misunderstands me entirely, and the even more rare even that somebody understands me (this type is usually so aligned with what I wrote that they have nothing to add).

The nature of the normal distribution makes it so that popularity and quality never correlate very strongly. This is discouraging to people who do their best in some field with the hope that they will be recognized for it. I've seen many artists troubled by this as well, everything they consider a "masterpiece" is somewhat obscure, while most popular things go against their taste. An example that many can agree with is probably pop music, but I don't think any examples exists which more than 50% of people agree with, because then said example wouldn't exist in the first place.

Probably not for me.  I had a few projects using AWS IoT buttons (no display, but arbitrary code run for click, double-click, or long-click of a small battery-powered wifi button), but the value wasn't really there, and I presume adding a display wouldn't quite be enough to devote the counter space.  Amusingly, it turns out the AWS version was EOL'd today - Learn about AWS IoT legacy services - AWS IoT Core

Upvote to signal: I would buy a button like this, if they existed.

Are you describing a stopwatch?

If you can get it to run off of ambient light with some built-in solar panels (like a calculator), yes, I would buy such a thing  for ~$20.

Hang up a tear-off calendar?

I personally used beeminder for this (which I think originated from this community)

Not sure what you mean by "underrated". The fact that they have $300MM from Vitalik but haven't really done much anyways was a downgrade in my books.

Is it a necessary non-epistemic truth? After all, it has a very lengthy partial proof in Principia Mathematica, and maybe they got something wrong. Perhaps you should check?

But then maybe you're not using a formal system to prove it, but just taking it as an axiom or maybe as a definition of what "2" means using other symbols with pre-existing meanings. But then if I define the term "blerg" to mean "a breakfast product with non-obvious composition", is that definition in itself a necessary truth?

Obviously if you mean "if you take one object and then take another object, you now have two objects" then that's a contingent proposition that requires evidence. It probably depends upon what sorts of things you mean by "objects" too, so we can rule that one out.

Or maybe "necessary non-epistemic truth" means a proposition that you can "grok in fullness" and just directly see that it is true as a single mental operation? Though, isn't that subjective and also epistemic? Don't you have to check to be sure that it is one? Was it a necessary non-epistemic truth for you when you were young enough to have trouble with the concept of counting?

So in the end I'm not really sure exactly what you mean by a necessary truth that doesn't need any checking. Maybe it's not even a coherent concept.

What do you mean by "necessary truth" and "epistemic truth"? I'm sorta confused about what you are asking.

I can be uncertain about the 1000th digit of pi. That doesn't make the digit being 9 any less valid. (Perhaps what you mean by necessary?) Put another way, the 1000th digit of pi is "necessarily" 9, but my knowledge of this fact is "epistemic". Does this help?

Just a note, in conventional philosophical terminology you would say:

Eg 1 + 1 = 2 is an epistemic necessity

But 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10 is an epistemic contingency.

One way to interpret this is to say that your degree of belief in the first equation is 1, while your degree of belief in the second equation is neither 1 nor 0.

Another way to interpret it is to say that the first is "subjectively entailed" by your evidence (your visual impression of the formula), but not the latter, nor is its negation. $A$ subjectively entails $B$ iff $P(B\mid A)=1$, where $P$ is a probability function that describes your beliefs.

In general, philosophers distinguish several kinds of possibility ("modality").

• Epistemic modality is discussed above. The first equation seems epistemically necessary, the second epistemically continent.
• With metaphysical modality (which roughly covers possibility in the widest natural sense of the term "possible"), both equations are necessary, if they are true. True mathematical statements are generally considered necessary, except perhaps for some more esoteric "made-up" math, e.g. more questionable large cardinal axioms. This type is usually implied when the type of modality isn't specified.
• With logical modality, both equations are logically contingent, because they are not logical tautologies. They instead depend on some non-logical assumptions like the Peano axioms. (But if logicism is true, both are actually disguised tautologies and therefore logically necessary.)
• Nomological (physical) modality: The laws of physics don't appear to allow them to be false, so both are nomologically necessary.
• Analytic/synthetic statements: Both equations are usually considered true in virtue of their meaning only, which would make them analytic (this is basically "semantic necessity"). For synthetic statements their meaning would not be sufficient to determine their truth value. (Though Kant, who came up with this distinction, argues that arithmetic statements are synthetic, although synthetic a priori, i.e. not requiring empirical evidence.)

Anyway, my opinion on this is that "1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10" is interpreted as the statement "this bunch of ones [referring to screen] added together equal 10" which has the same truth value, but not the same meaning. The second meaning would be compatible with slightly more or fewer ones on screen than there actually are on screen, which would make the interpretation compatible with a similar false formula which is different from actual one. The interpretation appears to be synthetic, while the original formula is analytic.

This is similar to how the expression "the Riemann hypothesis" is not synonymous to the Riemann hypothesis, since the former just refers to a statement instead of expressing it directly. You could believe "the Riemann hypothesis is true" without knowing the hypothesis itself. You could just mean "this bunch of mathematical notation expresses a true statement" or "the conjecture commonly referred to as 'Riemann hypothesis' is true". This belief expresses a synthetic statement, because it refers to external facts about what type of statement mathematicians happen to refer to exactly, which "could have been" (metaphysical possibility) a different one, and so could have had a different truth value.

Basically, for more complex statements we implicitly use indexicals ("this formula there") because we can't grasp it at once, resulting in a synthetic statement. When we make a math mistake and think something to be false that isn't, we don't actually believe some true analytic statement to be false, we only believe a true synthetic statement to be false.

I might have misunderstood you, but I wonder if you're mixing up calculating the self-information or surpisal of an outcome with the information gain on updating your beliefs from one distribution to another.

An outcome which has probability 50% contains $-\log \left(0.5\right)=1$ bit of self-information, and an outcome which has probability 75% contains $-\log \left(0.75\right)=0.41$ bits, which seems to be what you've calculated.

But since you're talking about the bits of information between two probabilities I think the situation you have in mind is that I've started with 50% credence in some proposition A, and ended up with 25% (or 75%). To calculate the information gained here, we need to find the entropy of our initial belief distribution, and subtract the entropy of our final beliefs. The entropy of our beliefs about A is $-p\left(A\right)\log \left(p\right(A\left)\right)-p\left(\neg A\right)\log \left(p\right(\neg A\left)\right)$.

So for 50% -> 25% it's $$H\left(P_i\right)-H\left(P_f\right)=(-0.5\log (0.5)-0.5\log (0.5\left)\right)-(-0.25\log (0.25)-0.75\log (0.75\left)\right).$$

And for 50%->75% it's $$H\left(P_i\right)-H\left(P_f\right)=(-0.5\log (0.5)-0.5\log (0.5\left)\right)-(-0.75\log (0.75)-0.25\log (0.25\left)\right).$$

So your intuition is correct: these give the same answer.

I think 3 is more like: "Attempting to achieve results in social reality, by 'social accuracy', regardless of factual accuracy."

• 1 = telling the truth, plainly
• 2 = lying, for instrumental purposes (not social)
• 3 = tribal speech (political correctness, religious orthodoxy, uncritical contrarianism, etc.)
• 4 = buzzwords, used randomly

This is better understood as a 2×2 matrix, rather than a linear sequence of 4 steps.

• 1, 2 = about reality
• 3, 4 = about social reality
• 1, 3 = trying to have a coherent model of (real or social) reality
• 2, 4 = making a random move to achieve a short-term goal in (real or social) reality

Maybe a different framework to look at it:

1. The map tries to represent the territory faithfully.
2. The map consciously misrepresent the territory. But you can still infer through the malevolent map some things about the territory.
3. The map does not represent the territory at all but pretends to be 1. Difference to 2 is that 2 is still taking the territory as base case and changing it while 3 is not at all trying to look at the territory.
4. The map is the territory. Any reference on the map is just a reference to another part of the map. Claiming that the map might be connected to an external territory is taken as bullshit because people are living in the map. In the optimal case the map is at least self consistent.

Can you say more which concept you mean exactly?

Does this tag on Law-Thinking [? · GW] help? Or do you mean "lawful" as in Dungeons & Dragons (incl. EY's Planecrash fic), i.e. neutral vs. chaos vs. lawful?

Is there a reason to be so specific, or could one equally well formulate this more generally?

Relevant: When pooling forecasts, use the geometric mean of odds [? · GW].

I only ever use words to express a probability when I don't want to take the time to figure out a number. I would write your example as, "Kamela will win the election with p = 54%, win Virginia with p =83% and win North Carolina with p = 43%."

Most communication questions will have different options depending on audience.  Who are you communicating to, and how high-bandwidth is the discussion (lots of questions and back-and-forth with one or two people is VERY different from, say, posting on a public forum).

For your examples, it seems you're looking for one-shot outbound communication, to a relatively wide and mostly educated audience.  I personally don't find the ambiguity in your examples particularly harmful, and any of them are probably acceptable.  

If anyone complains or it bugs you, I'd EITHER go with

• an end-note that all percentages are chance-to-win
• a VERY short descriptor like (43% win) or even (43%W).  
• reduce the text rather than the quantifier - "Kamala is 54% to win" without having to say that means "slight favorite".

To me the more natural reading is "probably looses North Caroliner (57%)".

57% being the chance that she "looses North Caroliner". Where as, as it is, you say "looses NC" but give the probabiltiy that she wins it. Which for me takes an extra scan to parse.

Just move the percent? Instead of "RFK Jr is very unlikely to win the presidency (0.001%)", say "RFK Jr is very unlikely (0.001%) to win the presidency"

We have many org announcements on LessWrong! If your company is relevant to the interests of LessWrong, I would welcome an announcement post.

Org announcements are personal blog posts unless they are embedded inside of a good frontpage post.

Carson:
 

Ppl don't seem to understand that Manifold could literally not exist in a year or 2 if they don't find a product market fit

seems like they are breaking an explicit contract (by pausing donations on ~a weeks notice)

seems breaking an implicity contract (that 100 mana was worth a dollar) 

The best way to honor Stanislav Petrov is to arrange systems not to need Stanislav Petrov.

There is an ongoing Petrov Day poll. I don't know if everyone on LW is being polled.

There are currently no active editors or a way of directing sufficient-for-this-purpose traffic to new edits, and on the UI side no way to undo an edit, an essential wiki feature. So when you write a large wiki article, it's left as you wrote it, and it's not going to be improved. For posts, review related to tags is in voting on the posts and their relevance, and even that is barely sufficient to get good relevant posts visible in relation to tags. But at least there is some sort of signal.

I think your article on Futarchy [? · GW] illustrates this point. So a reasonable policy right now is to keep all tags short. But without established norms that live in minds of active editors, it's not going to be enforced, especially against large edits that are written well.

It seems pretty plausible to me that if AI is bad, then rationalism did a lot to educate and spur on AI development. Sorry folks.

What? This apology makes no sense. Of course rationalism is Lawful Neutral. The laws of cognition aren't, can't be, on anyone's side.

Interesting. I always thought the D&D alignment chart was just a random first stab at quantizing a standard superficial Disney attitude toward ethics. This modification seems pretty sensible.

I think your good/evil axis is correct in terms of a deeper sense of the common terms. Evil people don't try to harm others typically, they just don't care- so their efforts to help themselves and their friends is prone to harm others. Being good means being good to everyone, not just your favorites. It's the size of your circle of compassion. Outright malignancy, cackling about others suffering, is pretty eye-catching when it happens (and it does), but I'd say the vast majority of harm in the world has been done by people who are merely not much concerned with collateral damage. Thus, I think those deserve the term evil, lest we focus on the wrong thing.

Predictable/unpredictable seems like a perfectly good alternate label for the chaotic/lawful. In some adversarial situations, it makes sense to be unpredictable.

One big question is whether you're referring to intentions or likely outcomes in your expected valaue (which I assume is expected value for all sentient beings or somethingg). A purely selfish person without much ambition may actually be a net good in the world; they work for the benefit of themselves and those close enough to be critical for their wellbeing, and they don't risk causing a lot of harm since that might cause blowback. The same personality put in a position of power might do great harm, ordering an invasion or employee downsizing to benefit themselves and their family while greatly harming many.

Chaotic Good: pivotal act 

Lawful Evil: "situational awareness"

You don't want to warn us that it is behind a paywall?

I do not follow German/EU politics for that reason. I did follow the US elections out of interest and believed that I would be sufficiently detached and neutral - and it still took some share of attention.  

In terms of topics (generally, not EU or US), I think it makes sense to have an idea of crime and healthcare etc. - but not on the day-by-day basis, because there is too much short-term information warfare going on (see below). Following decent bloggers or reading papers about longer-term trends makes sense though.

• Politicians' political beliefs
• Politicians' personal lives  

I think that is almost hopeless without deep inside knowledge. There is too much Simulacrum Levels [LW · GW] 3 and 4 communication going on. When a politician says: "I will make sure that America produces more oil." What does that mean? It surely doesn't mean that the politician will make sure that America produces more oil. It means (or could mean):

• The general population hears: "Oil prices will go down."
• Oil-producers hear: "Regulations may be relaxed about producing oil in America."
• Other countries hear: "America wants to send us a signal that they may compete on oil."
• ...  

Who are the parties the message is directed to, and how will they hear it? It is hard to know without a lot of knowledge about the needed messaging. It is a bit like the stock/crypto market: When you buy (or sell), you have to know why the person who is selling (or buying) your share doing so? If you don't know, then, likely, you are the one making a loss. If you don't know who the message is directed to, you cannot interpret it properly. 

And you can't go by the literal words. Or rather, the literal words are likely directed to somebody too (probably intellectuals, but what do I know) and likely intended to distract them.

Early on I politically only specialized in a few areas (digital sovereignty, privacy, computer security) and started being politically active in those areas. I actively decided that other areas such as climate change, housing, diet, ... are already focused on by many other activitst and I can probably do more good by specializing in some areas instead of trying to be well-read in all of them.

Personally I believe the need the be informed is only needed when I have the intent to act. I do intent to act on the new german ePA law and thus I inform myself and I do activism, I do not intent to act on home based heating laws and thus every effort into researching it beyond the basics would be wasted effort.