So you can now drag-and-drop images into comments. (Thanks, LessWrong dev team!)
Hence, this post is an excuse to build a beautiful, inspiring, powerful — and primarily visual — comment section.
Let's celebrate all that is great about the Art of Rationality, with images.
Each answer must contain a picture. No links!
It should be possible to just scroll through the comments and adore the artwork. There shouldn't be any need to click-through to other pages. (Think of it like a Pinterest board, if you've ever seen those.)
Adding text is fine, but consider doing it in a comment underneath your image, so it can be collapsed.
Pictures should be somehow relate to the Art of Rationality, as practiced on LessWrong.
Not allowed: a random pretty mountain; the Mona Lisa; abstract expressionism, ...
I'll be liberal with this condition if you can give a good justification for why you chose your piece.
Pictures should be beautiful art independently of their relation to rationality.
Allowed: an exquisite shot of some piece of elegantly engineered machinery; a richly colourful and swirling galaxy, ...
Not allowed: a random picture of Einstein and Gödel hanging out; a low-resolution photo of a galaxy which is cool because it represents an important advance in astronomy, but which in-and-of-itself just looks like some lame computer graphics; Petrov's own tourist photos, ...
Don't be a jerk, but do note if you think something is a major conflict with a virtue.
Probably goes without saying... but don't be a pretentious art critic. The point of this thread is to pay tribute to those virtues that keep us striving to leave this world in a better place than we found it, guided by the Light of Science. Don't shout over the music.
That being said, I do care about pictures actually representing rationality. For example, take that photo of the exhausted surgeon after a 23h heart transplant. If it turned out (hypothetical) to have been the result of really poor utilitarian calculations, and actually is in direct conflict with some of our virtues: I think it's important to note that.
Note: I'm certainly not saying that the above rules are all that rationalist art is about. I'm just going for a particular vision with this comment field. Other posts can enforce other visions. :)
Betulaster's image [LW(p) · GW(p)] made me think "surely there is a version of this concept that's more polished." Turned out there were several different ones when I googled "self sculpting man". Many of them are sculptures that I suspect work best in person, but I liked this one.
I feel like photography (and in particular, photographs showing interesting physical systems) is a particularly good fit for "rationalist" artwork. For me, one of the top two or three most fundamental principles of rationality is entangling oneself with the world - living in the real world, and appreciating the real world, rather than escaping into one's own imagination. That's not to say imagination is bad, but rather that the role of imagination is to act on the real world, rather than to live on a separate plane of existence. Let the real world inform our beliefs, and use that knowledge to bring our ideas into physical reality.
Photography is a great fit for that, because it portrays physical reality. In some cases, a photograph can help us entangle our own beliefs with reality - as in scientific photographs, like an image of a cell with certain organelles stained. In other cases, a photograph can display the form of some brilliant idea made real - as in the photograph above.
From Wikipedia: An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump is a 1768 oil-on-canvas painting by Joseph Wright of Derby, one of a number of candlelit scenes that Wright painted during the 1760s. The painting departed from convention of the time by depicting a scientific subject in the reverential manner formerly reserved for scenes of historical or religious significance. Wright was intimately involved in depicting the Industrial Revolution and the scientific advances of the Enlightenment. While his paintings were recognized as exceptional by his contemporaries, his provincial status and choice of subjects meant the style was never widely imitated. The picture has been owned by the National Gallery in London since 1863 and is regarded as a masterpiece of British art.
Thanks for sharing the picture. I feel like the excerpt you posted from Wikipedia isn't the most important part. While it touches on the artistic significance of the piece, it leaves open many questions about the relevance of the piece as a symbol of rationality. I found the following excerpts from the same article to be more enlightening in this regard:
The painting depicts a natural philosopher, a forerunner of the modern scientist, recreating one of Robert Boyle's air pump experiments, in which a bird is deprived of air, before a varied group of onlookers. The group exhibits a variety of reactions, but for most of the audience scientific curiosity overcomes concern for the bird. [...] Despite the operational and maintenance obstacles, construction of the [vacuum pump] enabled Boyle to conduct a great many experiments on the properties of air [...] He listed two experiments on living creatures: "Experiment 40", which tested the ability of insects to fly under reduced air pressure, and the dramatic "Experiment 41," which demonstrated the reliance of living creatures on air for their survival. In this attempt to discover something "about the account upon which Respiration is so necessary to the Animals, that Nature hath furnish'd with Lungs", Boyle conducted numerous trials during which he placed a large variety of different creatures, including birds, mice, eels, snails and flies, in the vessel of the pump and studied their reactions as the air was removed.
Not all existential risks are extinction risks- if a disaster can destroy humanity's potential, even without killing every single human, then it would still be an existential risk, which would fit the image
The true patronus was discovered (possibly rediscovered) by Harry Potter, when he finally understood that Dementors represent Death incarnate. His empathetic desire to protect all of humanity from the pain of that loss allowed him to not just drive away the fear of Death, but to conquer Death itself. This caused his Patronus to evolve into its true form; his Patronus took on the shape of an androgynous human. In this form, the Patronus gains additional abilities, including the ability to destroy Dementors and block the "unblockable" curse, Avada Kedavra.
Illustration from Michael Haddad for Wired. It was originally commissioned for an article about biohackers, but I find that it captures the spirit of agency and self-improvement that is well-aligned with some of rationalist values.
I chose this photograph because it displays one of the most elegant watch movements ever made. Within this movement there is a perpetual calendar complication.
A perpetual calendar complication is a calendar feature within a watch that accounts for both short months and leap years. If you own a watch with a perpetual calendar complication, it would only have to be adjusted once every 100 years.
From Wikipedia, "Vostok was a family of rockets derived from the Soviet R-7 Semyorka ICBM and was designed for the human spaceflight programme. This family of rockets launched the first artificial satellite and the first crewed spacecraft in human history. It was a subset of the R-7 family of rockets."
I chose this picture both because I find its composition to be aesthetically striking, and for its portrayal of Piotr Wozniack, in deep thought and ready to jog (an activity which I personally find conducive to great thinking), someone who represents many of the traits I appreciate in a rationalist mind:
Wozniack wanted to learn as much as possible, as efficiently as possible, and ran into fundamental limitations with the capabilities of the human mind, without access to any technology that could help him overcome the barriers he faced. So he did the only reasonable thing: he ran experiments on himself, recording how effective different methods of learning were; he read and learned as much as he could about the psychology of learning to find hints as to how to solve his problem; and once he finally figured out a way to dramatically increase the efficiency of his learning, he gained access to a computer (by means that were borderline illegal in then-Communist Poland) to actually implement his solution.
Wozniack's story is the meta-story for the importance of the virtue of scholarship, and thanks to his hard work and ingenuity, there now exists SRS (that is, the underpinnings of software like Anki), a technology that has played a massive role in my life- it allowed me to learn a second language to a high level of proficiency when I was a teenager, and I still interface with the algorithm Piotr wrote on a daily basis (as I know a good number of other LW'ers do) to help me store a large amount of useful information in my head.
I hesitated a little on whether to post this, given that it has been pointed out that the curvature of a ringworld wouldn't actually be that obvious from the inside, so it's in tension with the spirit of rationality to post a picture that depicts something physically impossible.
Still, after almost posting this, then deleting it, then feeling like I wanted to post it anyway, I decided to just do it. As I feel that it captures a combination of joy and love of life co-existing with, and made possible by, science and rationality.
I have an out-of-print national geographic book called "Inventors and Discoverers" with a bunch of great pieces in it, but I'm having trouble finding good versions of them on the web. A few particular favorites:
The mysterious blue glow w/ discharges looks like Cherenkov radiation, even though I'm pretty sure it's just blue lights serving as a backdrop to some high voltage discharge.
This is basically the most sci-fi thing ever - it's like the visual director of the universe decided that high-energy radiation in water had to glow blue to show the audience that something weird was going on.
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the thing that feels most rationalist-y about SpaceX, which is the exercise of agency against civilizational inadequacy. Elon Musk looked at space travel and was like, 'that seems inadequate, I bet I could do it better.' And everyone said, 'you're crazy, that's impossible.' And Elon Musk didn't listen to them and now SpaceX is a leader in space flight.
I guess the key word here might be "the Art of Rationality, as practiced on LessWrong". I do somewhat resonate with what you describe, but that feels more associated with a specific set of values that's predominant on LW due to a founder effect, rather than an integral part of rationality. So someone could still be rational in the sense that LW conceives rationality, without sharing the values implied by the concept of a cosmic endowment.
(That said, I'm cool with this thread being about that particular aesthetic, rather than rigorously just the art of rationality.)
Hmm, definitely feels core to the art of rationality to me. Like, convergent instrumental goals apply to humans as well. Understanding that just feels straightforwardly useful for the generalized art of rationality.
They certainly apply, but the formulation of the instrumental convergence thesis is very general, e.g. as stated in Bostrom's paper:
Several instrumental values can be identified which are convergent in the sense that their attainment would increase the chances of the agent’s goal being realized for a wide range of final goals and a wide range of situations, implying that these instrumental values are likely to be pursued by many intelligent agents.
That only states that those instrumental values are likely to be pursued by many agents to some extent, depending on how useful they are for fulfilling the ultimate values of the agents. But there's nothing to say that it would be particularly useful for the goals of most humans to pursue them to the point of e.g. advancing space colonization.
[...] specific set of values that's predominant on LW due to a founder effect [...] this thread being about that particular aesthetic [...]
Noticing that there's lots of matter to do something with is not an aesthetic, it's awareness of a basic drive. While it's technically possible to have a preference that doesn't value things that can be made out of galaxies, it would be shocking if there is a statistically significant number of humans whose correct idealization has that property. I mean, even a paperclip maximizer is not like that.
I think it's important to avoid mixing up the question of values about what should actually happen with the world, and the question of what seems aesthetically pleasing. What habryka referenced and you seem to be responding to are (salient ideas associated with) actual values. But this post's rules state that it's something real that should have power over selection of art, not just aesthetic preference, which makes habryka's appeal to values relevant, where it would be a much weaker argument if we were only discussing aesthetic preference.
While it's technically possible to have a preference that doesn't value things that can be made out of galaxies, it would be shocking if there is a statistically significant number of humans whose correct idealization has that property.
I have pretty broad uncertainty on whether "people's correct idealization" is a useful concept in this kind of a context, and assuming that it is, what those idealizations would value - seems to me like they might incorporate a fair amount of path dependence, with different equally correct idealizations arriving at completely different ultimate outcomes.
which makes habryka's appeal to values relevant, where it would be a much weaker argument if we were only discussing aesthetic preference.
I have pretty broad uncertainty on whether "people's correct idealization" is a useful concept in this kind of a context, and assuming that it is, what those idealizations would value [...]
Understanding of a concept shouldn't directly depend on whether it's useful, so I think it's an error to entertain the assumption of usefulness. (What use were you considering? Maybe it is relevant in a way I don't see?)
Here, it doesn't matter what stuff people would value (so it isn't relevant that different people value different things or that there is a lot of uncertainty about what people value). The question is whether the total value of the-most-valuable-to-a-given-person stuff, whatever that is, made out of reachable matter is significant (compared to what can be made out of Earth). Do you mean that it's plausible that for a lot of people it isn't actually significant?
That's the question I implicitly posed in the grandparent. It's not clear from your response what you think about it. A point I would agree with is that the question is too vague to have a robust understanding of it, so heuristically it makes sense to only entertain some related considerations while holding off on articulating an answer (in the same spirit as for most stuff pundits are wont to irresponsibly opine about).