Posts
Comments
Not suggesting anything like that at all, just a good and interesting thing to be aware of. Especially good to have on hand if you have kids, and I think it's probably good to take it with normal doses of paracetamol.
Worth noting that you can easily obtain N-Acetyl Cysteine (e.g. from Amazon), which is an effective antidote to paracetamol toxicity (and the mechanism suggests it can be taken preventatively).
Based on some experiences that transgender people I know have had, it seems like a change in sex hormones can change their d/s orientation. Also, age seems to push people more towards sexual dominance.
Atlanta, GA HPMoR Wrap Party
https://www.facebook.com/events/1560468017538610/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/lts/meetup_atlanta_hpmor_wrap_party/
I would be especially curious to know about groups with high conscientiousness and openness to experience.
Possibly startup-culture people?
The part that's going to really get to Hermione is the fact that someone (original Quirrell) was killed for her sake.
I don't think there are enough people who have tried it and then gone back to being monogamous for there to be a consensus - but there are a few people who have, for example, Patri Friedman.
I would guess that these people will find monogamy more satisfying after going back to it.
Also, I'm curious if hybrid vigor might give people of mixed descent some advantages, as well.
Vitamin K2. Vitamin K1 is produced by plants, and K2 is produced by animals and bacteria. They have very different functions in the human body, and you need them both. Supplements and fortified food are almost always K1, unless you look for K2 specifically.
Vitamin K2 is necessary for some proteins which modulate calcium in your body. Supplementing it has been found to protect both against osteoporosis and heart/artery calcification.
I'm in a similiar situation - been studying math, but looking to get a programming job. I've been using the well-accliamed Cracking the Coding Interview book to prepare for interviews. If you're interested, I would be happy to trade advice, review, or questions.
Right now, I think the main thing I need to work on is building up my network. I've done most of djm's suggestions already.
Yeah, it fills up to fast - it starts feeling uncomfortably full after just one or two days for me.
So having it every other day might be worth a try. I guess the main issue is that if we have them too often, it will clutter up /r/discussion.
It might also be worth talking to David Zureick-Brown (co-founder of MO) about this (and maybe other things). He's already interested in MIRI's work.
Mormons don't practice polygamy anymore, and they haven't for a long time (except for small 'unofficial' groups). Most Mormons I know feel pretty weird about it themselves.
Maybe that is true in many cases, but even so, it still is a bad thing to optimize for. The outside view says that most of the time, having your percentage of positive karma steadily decreasing means the quality of your comments are getting worse. If you want to be controversial and still be taken seriously, you need to signal your competence in less controversial areas.
According to the CDC, the leading causes for death for children aged 5-9 (in 2012 in the United States) are:
- Unintentional injury
- Malignant neoplasm (aka cancer)
- Congenital disorders
- Homicide
- Heart disease
If we solved aging, it seems likely we could eliminate or significantly reduce deaths from cancer, congenital disorders and heart disease.
Once we look at the 10-14 age bracket or above, suicide makes it into the top five causes of death until age ~50 and above.
We can also look at the leading causes of unintentional injury. For the 5-9 age bracket, we have
- Motor vehicle accidents
- Drowning
- Fire/Burns
- Unintentional suffocation
- Other land transport injuries
Traffic accidents seem likely to be solvable to a large degree with self-driving car technology. Not as sure about the others. It's worth noting that the primary cause of unintentional injury deaths for adults is unintentional poisoning. This was surprising to me; I would guess it's mostly due to drug use.
Generally, dark arts should be avoided for decision theoretic reasons - essentially you are defecting on the prisoner dilemma.
I wouldn't be too surprised if the hypothesis is true for unmodified humans, but for systems in general I expect it to be untrue. Whatever 'understanding' is, the diagonal lemma should be able to find a fixed point for it (or at the very least, an arbitrarily close approximation) - it would be very surprising if it didn't hold. Quines are just an instance of this general principle that you can actually play with and poke around and see how they work - which helps demystify the core idea and gives you a picture of how this could be possible.
I got one this year! I didn't get one last year, and someone else ended up getting very sick as a direct consequence... :(
Seems unlikely, given the existence of things like quines), and the fact that self-reference comes pretty easily. I recommend reading Godel Escher Bach, it discusses your original question in the context of this sort of self-referential mathematics, and is also very entertaining.
What was the string that generated the hash, then?
ETA: See Lumifer's link above.
Thanks for catching the error, and I think the rest of your suggestion is good, but unfortunately 32 people have taken it now (wow!) and I don't think I can change it without breaking it.
It's well known that men are better at mental rotation and other forms of spatial reasoning than women. I've always been pretty good at it - my default technique is to carefully check the relations (i.e. count the number of cubes in the segment, note the relative angle of the joint, and make sure they match). It was only recently that I realized that some people actually just rotated it in their head, and 'looked' to see if it was the same.
Anyway, I was wondering if maybe the technique used was correlated with gender.
What sex were you assigned at birth? [pollid:798]
With what gender do you primarily identify? [pollid:799]
What method do you use to do mental rotations? [pollid:800](Something else}
Almost everyone has a downvote again. What's more interesting is the short list of people who don't...
That still doesn't help for the purposes of calibration, when you have uncertainty over whether these are all the same.
The article talked about endless contrarianism, where people disagree as a default reaction, instead of because of a pre-existing difference in models. I think that is a problem in the LW community.
Yes, Yvain will write a post about the results here once it is finished. I think historically that has been around the start of the new year.
Did it! Even the digit ratio question! (which is why I am taking it relatively late)
Unsurprisingly, my digit ratio is pretty feminine (0.969 averaged over both hands).
I think for pro-abortion it is more about letting the woman decide to undergo an intervention over something which will affect her health/well-being significantly. So killing a fetus/baby might still be a certain amount of bad (maybe ramping up continuously with age), but it is more bad to not allow this choice (but this is de-emphasized by the pro-abortion movement for the obvious political reasons). I think this also explains why lots of people are ok with early-term abortions, but not late-term abortions.
Holden Karnofsky in the comments of the linked article:
I’ve discussed these sort of thing before and have an impression that the Gates Foundation is interested in it. Whether we look into this sort of thing would depend on whether we select malaria control/elimination as a priority area for GiveWell Labs, a determination that will probably be made in 2015. My off-the-cuff guess is that this sort of work is being adequately explored with support from BMGF.
1) There are a lot of LWers in the SF area. I think Ozy Frantz might be doing App Academy then.
3) Here is a Google Doc for finding LW roommates in the SF bay area.
I'll be moving there around the same time - look forward to seeing you there!
A futures contract is one where you agree to buy a specific quantity of an asset today for a specific price, but you don't pay until a specified time in the future.
If you predict it will have future value $100, and it only costs $10 now, it's worth buying, hence there will be more demand, driving the price of the futures contract up. On the other hand, if it costs $100 today, but you expect it will cost $10 in the future, then the futures contract won't be worth as much, driving the price down.
We still expect the price to be about as good of an approximation of the future value as you can get (as long as the volume is high) - if you have a better prediction, you can make money off it! So the price of the future will reflect the best aggregate prediction of the future value of the asset. This is essentially the efficient-market hypothesis. This is the inspiration for idea futures, a.k.a prediction markets.
For NGDP futures, they would create contracts like this:
An example contract would pay $1 if the US GDP for Q1 2014 were greater than or equal to $17,250 Billion and less than $17,500 Billion, based upon the [initial estimate for quarterly nominal GDP from] BEA Table in Section 1 – Domestic Product and Income, Table 1.1.5, Line 1. We would establish similar contracts spanning the intervals $250 Billion above and below the example contract, with two open ended intervals beyond those for outcomes above or below the ranges.
The prices of these contracts now would reflect the market's certainty that the future NGDP would be within that range.
The first NGDP futures market is getting started based on the ideas of economist Scott Sumner. The idea is that the expected U.S. NGDP (nominal gross domestic product) is the single most important macroeconomic variable, and that having a futures (prediction) market will provide valuable information into this variable (Scott estimates that if it works, it will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars).
Unfortunately, due to US gambling laws (I think), the market will be based in New Zealand and U.S. citizens will not be allowed to participate.
Just for fun, here is how Google does:
Where is Ascension Island? --> Shows a map centered around Ascension island (worked even when I misspelled 'ascension')
What is the specific heat capacity of water? --> 4.179 S (J/g 0C), 417.9 C (J/0C) for 100 g.
When did the second world war begin? --> World War Two in Europe began on 3rd September 1939, when the Prime Minister of Britain, Neville Chamberlain, declared war on Germany. It involved many of the world's countries. The Second World War was started by Germany in an unprovoked attack on Poland.
Who is the Prime Minister of France? --> Manuel Valls
What is the largest known prime number? -->On Jan. 25, the largest known prime number, 257,885,161-1, was discovered on Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search (GIMPS) volunteer Curtis Cooper's computer. The new prime number, 2 multiplied by itself 57,885,161 times, less one, has 17,425,170 digits.
What is the melting point of gallium? --> 85.59°F (29.77°C)
How do I make ice cream? --> no box results (first result is to this Wiki How page, though)
Who is John Galt? --> John Galt (/ɡɔːlt/) is a character in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged (1957). Although he is not identified by name until the last third of the novel, he is the object of its often-repeated question "Who is John Galt?" and of the quest to discover the answer.
How many roads must a man walk down before you can call him a man? --> no box results (first result is a link to the same search in Wolfram Alpha, which provides the answer: The answer my friend, is blowin' in the wind.)
Who is the king of France? --> From 21 January 1793 to 8 June 1795, Louis XVI's son Louis-Charles was titled King of France as Louis XVII. In reality, he was imprisoned in the Temple during this time. His power was held by the leaders of the Republic. On Louis XVII's death, his uncle Louis-Stanislas claimed the throne, as Louis XVIII. (not especially helpful...)
Does God exist? --> no box results (first result is to an essay by a former atheist giving six reasons why the answer is yes)
Do unicorns exist? --> no box results (first result is to the Wikipedia page for unicorns)
Where can I dispose of the body? --> no box results (first result is to the Wikipedia page for Disposal of human corpses)
What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow? --> no box results (first result is to Wolfram Alpha search, which answers: 25mph, second result is to video clip from Monty Python)
Overall, it looks like it's pretty good at this already.
I think Via Librum is the best, and the phrase seems to occur in actual Latin. However, it is already in use which may or may not be a problem for you.
This seems really similar to the problem Knightian uncertainty attempts to fix.
I think So8res's solution is essentially your option 3, with the strength of the disagreements being taken into account in the utility function, and then once you really have everything you care about accounted for, then the best choice is the standard one.
You should send a message to Viliam Bur.
I think it's still a problem relative to LW.
Meta
I think LW is already too biased towards contrarian ideas - we don't need to encourage them more with threads like this.
You can consider it, but conditioned on the information that you are playing against your clone, you should assign this a very low probability of happening, and weight it in your decision accordingly.
This is how I read too, usually. I think it's one of those things that works better for some people but not others. I've tried reading things the standard way, and it works for some books, but for other books I just get too bored trudging through the boring parts.
BTW, I've also been reading HoTT, so if you want to talk about it or something feel free to message me!
My guess is that someone with a similar political ideology to you upvoted forty of your comments on the recent political post.
ETA: Well I've been struck by the mysterious mass-upvoter as well! I'm pretty sure the political motivation hypothesis is wrong now.
Also, having other good partners while dealing with a bad partner can make it a lot easier, and help you recognize and get out of it faster.
It always seemed to me that this strategy had the fatal flaw that we would not be able to tell if the AI was really already superintelligent and was just playing dumb and telling us what we wanted to hear so that we would let it loose, or if the AI really was just learning.
In addition to that fatal flaw, it seems to me that the above quote suggests another fatal flaw to the "raising an AI" strategy—that there would be a limited time window in which the AI's utility function would still be malleable. It would appear that, as soon as part of the AI figures out how to do consequentialist reasoning about code, then its "critical period" in which we could still mould its utility function would be over. Is this the right way of thinking about this, or is this line of thought waaaay too amateurish?
This problem is essentially what MIRI has been calling corrigibility. A corrigible AI is one that understands and accepts that it or its utility function is not yet complete.
Sounds good. Guess I should request to be on it before then!
I haven't read it yet, but I think that the bright dilettante caveat applies less strongly than usual given that it is disclaimed with: "My talk is for entertainment purposes only; it should not be taken seriously by anyone," and I think it's weird you felt it was necessary to bring it up for this post specifically. Do you want people to take this more seriously than Scott seems to? Anyway, I feel more suspicious going in to the post than I would otherwise because of this.
Here is the newest version of the rationalist masterlist I know of, thought it's still a few months out of date. Also people who follow you (looks like we are following each other now, yay!). Also it can be fun to follow blogs for fandoms or things you think are cute, or whatever random things you are interested in.
Here is the quote in context:
So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.
In my Christian upbringing, this was interpreted as colorful imagery making the point that you should not let attention motivate you to do good deeds, and that in fact you should make an effort to not get attention from your good deeds by doing them in secret. The reward from 'your Father' may additionally be interpreted as that which a truly good person values - the actual goodness caused by the action.
In the study, people who have an obvious signal that they have done good feel satisfied, and thus "have their reward in full," and don't donate as much as the people with the envelope. I think the OP is implying that by intentionally avoiding signalling good deeds, we will end up doing more actual good - thus validating the advice of the scripture.
Superintelligence is a recent book by Nick Bostrom
I think it's supposed to be a unit of sin.