Apparently Shelly Kagan has a book coming out soon that is (sort of?) about moral weight.
This scoring rules has some downsides from a usability standpoint. See Greenberg 2018, a whitepaper prepared as background material for a (forthcoming) calibration training app.
Some other people at Open Phil have spent more time thinking about two-envelope effects more than I have, and fwiw some of their thinking on the issue is in this post (e.g. see section 1.1.1.1).
My own take on this is described briefly here, with more detail in various appendices, e.g. here.
Yes, I meant to be describing ranges conditional on each species being moral patients at all. I previously gave my own (very made-up) probabilities for that here. Another worry to consider, though, is that many biological/cognitive and behavioral features of a species are simultaneously (1) evidence about their likelihood of moral patienthood (via consciousness), and (2) evidence about features that might affect their moral weight *given* consciousness/patienthood. So, depending on how you use that evidence, it's important to watch out for double-counting.
I'll skip responding to #2 for now.
For anyone who is curious, I cite much of the literature arguing over criteria for moral patienthood/weight in the footnotes of this section of my original moral patienthood report. My brief comments on why I've focused on consciousness thus far are here.
Preliminary thoughts on moral weight
2018-08-13T23:45:13.430Z · score: 73 (31 votes)Cool, this looks better than I'd been expecting. Thanks for doing this! Looking forward to next round.
Quick thoughts on empathic metaethics
2017-12-12T21:46:08.834Z · score: 34 (11 votes)Hurrah failed project reports!
One of my most-used tools is very simple: an Alfred snippet that lets me paste-as-plain-text using Cmd+Opt+V.
Thanks!
From a user's profile, be able to see their comments in addition to their posts.
Dunno about others, but this is actually one of the LW features I use the most.
(Apologies if this is listed somewhere already and I missed it.)
Probably not suitable for launch, but given that the epistemic seriousness of the users is the most important "feature" for me and some other people I've spoken to, I wonder if some kind of "user badges" thing might be helpful, especially if it influences the weight that upvotes and downvotes from those users have. E.g. one badge could be "has read >60% of the sequences, as 'verified' by one of the 150 people the LW admins trust to verify such a thing about someone" and "verified superforecaster" and probably some other things I'm not immediately thinking of.
- Constantly.
- Frequently.
Thanks for briefly describing those Doctor Who episodes.
Lists of textbook award winners like this list might also be useful.
Fixed, thanks.
Today I encountered a real-life account of a the chain story — involving a cow rather than an elephant — around 24:10 into the "Best of BackStory, Vol. 1" episode of the podcast BackStory.
"Accuracy-boosting" or "raising accuracy"?
Source. But the non-cached page says "The details of this job cannot be viewed at this time," so maybe the job opening is no longer available.
FWIW, I'm a bit familiar with Dafoe's thinking on the issues, and I think it would be a good use of time for the right person to work with him.
Hi Rick, any updates on the Audible version?
See also: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=9557614170081724663&hl=en&as_sdt=1,5
Just donated!
Hurray!
Any chance you'll eventually get this up on Audible? I suspect that in the long run, it can find a wider audience there.
Another attempt to do something like this thread: Viva la Books.
I guess subjective logic is also trying to handle this kind of thing. From Jøsang's book draft:
Subjective logic is a type of probabilistic logic that allows probability values to be expressed with degrees of uncertainty. The idea of probabilistic logic is to combine the strengths of logic and probability calculus, meaning that it has binary logic’s capacity to express structured argument models, and it has the power of probabilities to express degrees of truth of those arguments. The idea of subjective logic is to extend probabilistic logic by also expressing uncertainty about the probability values themselves, meaning that it is possible to reason with argument models in presence of uncertain or incomplete evidence.
Though maybe this particular formal system has really undesirable properties, I don't know.
Donated $300.
Never heard of him.
For those who haven't been around as long as Wei Dai…
Eliezer tells the story of coming around to a more Bostromian view, circa 2003, in his coming of age sequence.
Just FYI, I plan to be there.
Any idea when the book is coming out?
Just FYI to readers: the source of the first image is here.
I don't know if this is commercially feasible, but I do like this idea from the perspective of building civilizational competence at getting things right on the first try.
Might you be able to slightly retrain so as to become an expert on medium-term and long-term biosecurity risks? Biological engineering presents serious GCR risk over the next 50 years (and of course after that, as well), and very few people are trying to think through the issues on more than a 10-year time horizon. FHI, CSER, GiveWell, and perhaps others each have a decent chance of wanting to hire people into such research positions over the next few years. (GiveWell is looking to hire a biosecurity program manager right now, but I assume you can't acquire the requisite training and background immediately.)
I think it's partly not doing enough far-advance planning, but also partly just a greater-than-usual willingness to Try Things that seem like good ideas even if the timeline is a bit rushed. That's how the original minicamp happened, which ended up going so well that it inspired us to develop and launch CFAR.
People have complained about Sumatra not working with MIRI's PDF ebooks, too. It was hard enough already to get our process to output the links we want on most readers, so we decided not to make the extra effort to additionally support Sumatra. I'm not sure what it would take.
Updated, thanks!
Fixed, thanks.
Maybe just use odds ratios. That's what I use when I'm trying to make updates on the spot.
Working on MIRI's current technical agenda mostly requires a background in computer science with an unusually strong focus on logic: see details here. That said, the scope of MIRI's research program should be expanding over time. E.g. see Patrick's recent proposal to model goal stability challenges in a machine learning system, which would require more typical AI knowledge than has usually been the case for MIRI's work so far.
MIRI's research isn't really what a mathematician would typically think of as "math research" — it's more like theory-heavy computer science research with an unusually significant math/logic component, as is the case with a few other areas of computer science research, e.g. program analysis.
Also see the "Our recommended path for becoming a MIRI research fellow" section on our research fellow job posting.
Fixed, thanks!
I tried this earlier, with Great Explanations.
I can't mail that address, I get a failure message from Google
Oops. Should be fixed now.
Thanks! BTW, I'd prefer to have 1% and 0.1% and 99% and 99.9% as options, rather than skipping over the 1% and 99% options as you have it now.
Fair enough. I've edited my original comment.
(For posterity: the text for my original comment's first hyperlink originally read "0 and 1 are not probabilities".)
Which is roughly the length of War and Peace or Atlas Shrugged.
0% probability is my most common answer as well, but I'm using it less often than I was choosing 50% on the CFAR calibration app (which forces a binary answer choice rather than an open-ended answer choice). The CFAR app has lots of questions like "Which of these two teams won the Superbowl in 1978" where I just have no idea. The trivia database Nanashi is using has, for me, a greater proportion of questions on which my credence is something more interesting than an ignorance prior.
I'd prefer not to allow 0 and 1 as available credences. But if 0 remained as an option I would just interpret it as "very close to 0" and then keep using the app, though if a future version of the app showed me my Bayes score then the difference between what the app allows me to choose (0%) and what I'm interpreting 0 to mean ("very close to 0") could matter.
Awesome!
I've been dying for something like this after I zoomed through all the questions in the CFAR calibration app.
Notes so far:
- The highest-available confidence is 99%, so the lowest-available confidence should be 1% rather than 0%. Or even better, you could add 99.9% and 0.1% as additional options.
- So far I've come across one question that was blank. It just said Category: jewelry and then had no other text. Somehow the answer was Ernest Hemingway.
- Would be great to be able to sign up for an account so I could track my calibration across multiple sessions.