Posts

Is there something like a "meta-encyclopedia"? 2020-06-11T12:16:08.423Z · score: 14 (6 votes)
Meetup : Fifth Buenos Aires LessWrong meetup 2014-08-04T22:00:08.749Z · score: 1 (2 votes)
[link] Why Psychologists' Food Fight Matters 2014-08-01T07:52:38.604Z · score: 28 (28 votes)
[link] [poll] Future Progress in Artificial Intelligence 2014-07-09T13:51:49.243Z · score: 8 (9 votes)
[link] Nick Beckstead on improving disaster shelters to increase the chances of recovery from a global catastrophe 2014-02-19T17:27:04.303Z · score: 6 (9 votes)
[link] Psychologists strike a blow for reproducibility 2013-11-28T05:26:46.988Z · score: 26 (27 votes)
[Link] "A Long-run Perspective on Strategic Cause Selection and Philanthropy" by Nick Beckstead and Carl Shulman 2013-11-05T18:27:04.851Z · score: 5 (6 votes)
[link] "The Survival of Humanity" 2013-09-14T15:19:37.300Z · score: 1 (6 votes)
[video] "Transhuman", featuring Sandberg and Bostrom 2013-06-16T18:59:57.994Z · score: 6 (9 votes)
[link] Join Wall Street. Save the World 2013-05-31T16:49:23.151Z · score: 23 (26 votes)
[Paper] On the 'Simulation Argument' and Selective Scepticism 2013-05-18T18:31:10.901Z · score: 11 (14 votes)
[Link] 2012 Winter Intelligence Conference videos available 2013-04-29T20:01:45.806Z · score: 7 (10 votes)
[Link] Values Spreading is Often More Important than Extinction Risk 2013-04-07T05:14:44.154Z · score: 11 (20 votes)
Anki decks by LW users 2013-04-02T17:50:16.480Z · score: 28 (28 votes)
[Link] Tomasik's "Quantify with Care" 2013-02-23T13:52:10.309Z · score: 13 (14 votes)
CEV: a utilitarian critique 2013-01-26T16:12:20.846Z · score: 25 (46 votes)
[Link] TEDx talk of Anders Sandberg on the Fermi "paradox" 2013-01-01T20:52:18.972Z · score: 2 (5 votes)
Meetup : Fourth Buenos Aires Less Wrong meetup 2012-12-29T22:47:23.224Z · score: 2 (3 votes)
[link] Interview with Anders Sandberg on how to make a difference through research and how to choose a research topic 2012-12-01T18:25:01.174Z · score: 8 (9 votes)
GiveWell and the Centre for Effective Altruism are recruiting 2012-11-19T23:53:24.535Z · score: 11 (16 votes)
[Link] One in five American adults say they are atheist, agnostic or "nothing in particular" 2012-10-10T23:45:17.260Z · score: 8 (28 votes)
Meetup : Third Buenos Aires Meetup: 2 June 2012 4:00PM 2012-05-26T07:47:09.998Z · score: 1 (2 votes)
Meetup : Buenos Aires meetup: Saturday, February 25th, 4pm 2012-02-17T17:57:06.548Z · score: 2 (3 votes)
Buenos Aires meetup: Saturday, May 14th, 3pm 2011-05-13T21:15:01.081Z · score: 4 (5 votes)

Comments

Comment by pablo_stafforini on Is there something like a "meta-encyclopedia"? · 2020-06-27T00:15:29.597Z · score: 6 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Another example I just discovered: Wikipedia classifies Quillette as an unreliable source; by contrast, Vox, The Nation, Mother Jones are all considered reliable sources. I don't often read Quillette, but my sense is that a criterion that generates this classification can't be defended as unbiased.

Whether a source is classified as reliable or unreliable can shape the content of Wikipedia articles in major ways, because only statements backed up by sources deemed reliable are admissible. If the list of reliable sources is skewed in a particular direction, so will be the articles.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on SlateStarCodex deleted because NYT wants to dox Scott · 2020-06-26T23:45:22.366Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

There's also a similar question on Polymarket, a new prediction market. (Note that the Metaculus question is conditional on the NYT publishing a story on Scott, whereas the Polymarket is unconditional.)

Comment by pablo_stafforini on Covid 6/25: The Dam Breaks · 2020-06-26T23:30:11.508Z · score: 21 (7 votes) · LW · GW

When Eliezer and others talk about "civilizational inadequacy", they generally refer to something much broader than the United States. Eliezer mentions the example of Japan's monetary policy, for instance. He also contrasts the civilizational inadequacy thesis with "the view that in general, on most issues, the average opinion of humanity will be a better and less biased guide to the truth than my own judgment." (emphasis added) And he relies (I think) on that thesis to draw conclusions about how he expects humanity to handle AI risk; such an inference wouldn't work if the thesis was restricted to the prevailing culture or institutions of a particular country. At the very least, if usage deviates from this established meaning I think this should be made clear.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on Covid 6/25: The Dam Breaks · 2020-06-26T15:38:05.733Z · score: 9 (4 votes) · LW · GW

I'm not sure I understand your response. Yes, the series of updates is clearly focused on the United States, but your claim is that "civilization" explains why the US handled Covid-19 so poorly. Since human civilization is a factor present in all countries in the world, the fact that other countries handled Covid-19 very differently constitutes evidence against the "civilizational inadequacy" hypothesis. That your post wasn't focused on these other countries seems irrelevant.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on Is there a good way to simultaneously read LW and EA Forum posts and comments? · 2020-06-26T13:04:07.810Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Thanks. I'm not sure how to implement those suggestions on Wordpress, but I'll add them to the list of possible improvements.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on Is there a good way to simultaneously read LW and EA Forum posts and comments? · 2020-06-25T14:22:49.561Z · score: 10 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I maintain EA Blogs. Although this is tangential to the original question, if anyone has suggestions on either additional blogs to include or possible general improvements, please contact me or leave a comment below.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on SlateStarCodex deleted because NYT wants to dox Scott · 2020-06-23T13:35:21.251Z · score: 27 (16 votes) · LW · GW

Metaculus question: Will the New York Times doxx Scott Alexander?

Comment by pablo_stafforini on SlateStarCodex deleted because NYT wants to dox Scott · 2020-06-23T10:38:29.392Z · score: 5 (3 votes) · LW · GW

As a side note, I strongly recommend the uBlacklist extension Mati mentions for preventing toxic websites from appearing on your search results (e.g. a certain "rational" wiki that writes cruel stuff about people they dislike).

Comment by pablo_stafforini on Using a memory palace to memorize a textbook. · 2020-06-19T14:45:18.660Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Great post.

Gwern points to expert opinion that visual thinking ability might be second only to IQ in terms of intellectual importance.

Do you happen to remember the source for this? A quick Google search didn't help.

EDIT: Found it (I think):

an emphasis on spatial reasoning & visualization ability was one of the reasons behind SMPY choosing to use SAT-M for screening, as one of the theses is that, after general intelligence, visuospatial reasoning (as opposed to the more academically-prized glibness & verbal ability) may be the next most important requirement for major STEM achievement.
Comment by pablo_stafforini on Is there something like a "meta-encyclopedia"? · 2020-06-18T15:30:53.784Z · score: 7 (4 votes) · LW · GW

This is my anecdotal impression as a long-time Wikipedia editor (I started contributing in 2003). I can't offer concrete evidence other than my testimony, because this impression was formed in the course of observing subtle instances of bias on countless occasions, rather than encountering any one egregious incident. (Though on reflection I can cite two not-so-subtle examples illustrative of the phenomenon I have in mind: first, the labelling of cryonics as "quackery"; and secondly, the blacklisting of econlib.org.)

The biases I noticed are in the left-wing and "skeptical" directions (meaning by the latter something like what Eliezer calls "traditional rationality", as opposed to the "Bayesian rationality" folks in the rationalist and EA communities generally endorse). Think of it as Wikipedia moving slightly in the direction of RationalWiki.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on Is there something like a "meta-encyclopedia"? · 2020-06-11T12:25:21.441Z · score: 12 (4 votes) · LW · GW

I just found that such a resource exists for philosophy, in case it is of interest to others: Meta-Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

On reflection, I guess it makes sense that the philosophers would be among the first to "go meta".

Comment by pablo_stafforini on Are there good ways to find expert reviews of popular science books? · 2020-06-09T15:25:42.462Z · score: 7 (4 votes) · LW · GW

Red Pen Reviews does something like this for health and nutrition books. I am not aware of similar initiatives for books in other scientific fields.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on Most reliable news sources? · 2020-06-06T23:47:15.452Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I like FiveThirtyEight, but it's not the sort of publication you can refer to for "what happened in the past 3 days" (except for very specific events like 'how much Trump's popularity changed in the intervening period').

I second the Financial Times recommendation.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on Nihilism doesn't matter · 2020-05-22T17:09:20.302Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

This argument has long been known, and much discussed. See e.g. Jacob Ross, Rejecting ethical deflationism and William MacAskill, The infectiousness of nihilism.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on What are your greatest one-shot life improvements? · 2020-05-17T17:18:19.235Z · score: 6 (4 votes) · LW · GW

Recurring Freedom session across all my devices (laptop, phone, tablet) set to disable all apps and most websites (including messaging, news, and discussion sites) 30 minutes before bedtime every night.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on What was your reasoning for deciding whether to raise children? · 2020-05-15T12:43:55.057Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

There's also Jeff Kaufman's Parenting and happiness.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on Thoughts on the Singularity Institute (SI) · 2020-05-06T11:59:17.447Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Thank you!

Comment by pablo_stafforini on Thoughts on the Singularity Institute (SI) · 2020-05-05T15:37:21.532Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW
I elaborated further on the distinction and on the concept of a tool-AI in Karnofsky/Tallinn 2011.

Holden's notes from that conversation, posted to the old GiveWell Yahoo Group as a file attachment, do not appear to be publicly available anymore. Jeff Kaufman has archived all the messages from that mailing list, but unfortunately his archive does not include file attachments. Has anyone kept a copy of that file by any chance?

Comment by pablo_stafforini on Seemingly Popular Covid-19 Model is Obvious Nonsense · 2020-04-17T13:17:48.642Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

An update by the OP on what bets they are willing to make would be much appreciated.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on A practical out-of-the-box solution to slow down COVID-19: Turn up the heat · 2020-03-29T14:34:09.518Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Update: it now appears that Bolsonaro may have tested positive, though the situation is still unclear, at least to me. The main evidence in favor of the hypothesis that the Brazilian president has tested positive, according to this London Review of Books article, is that (1) Fox News claims that this is what his son Eduardo initially told them, that (2) Bolsonaro has refused to make the results of his tests public, and that (3) 25 members of his entourage are confirmed to have the virus.

Note that the article shows some signs of bias, such as calling the impeachment of former president Dilma Rousseff a "coup" and describing Bolsonaro's economic minister as having studied "at the University of Chile under Pinochet" (Pinochet was the president of Chile, not the president of the University of Chile). So I'm updating only slightly and would like to see this confirmed by more neutral sources.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on The case for C19 being widespread · 2020-03-28T14:10:59.227Z · score: 13 (5 votes) · LW · GW

I really appreciate your attempt to summarize this literature. But it seems you still believe that the Oxford paper provides evidence in favor of very low IFR, when in fact others are claiming that this is merely an assumption of their model, and that this assumption was made not because the authors believe it is plausible but simply for exploratory purposes. If this is correct (I haven't myself read the paper, so I can only defer to others), then the reputation or expertise of the authors is evidentially irrelevant, and shouldn't cause you to update in the direction of the very low IFR. (Of course, there may be independent reasons for such an update.)

Comment by pablo_stafforini on The case for C19 being widespread · 2020-03-28T13:26:45.206Z · score: 7 (4 votes) · LW · GW
Many passengers refused to be tested.

That's the Grand Princess, not the Diamond Princess.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on Covid-19 Points of Leverage, Travel Bans and Eradication · 2020-03-21T15:29:19.413Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

What is the lag between infection and feasible detection? Without knowing the answer to this question, I'm skeptical this consideration should suffice to justify indiscriminate travel bans. South Korea has largely contained the outbreak mostly by extensive testing and isolation, and without imposing significant travel bans. And we are assuming a scenario where tests are even more widespread, and deliver results more quickly, than currently in South Korea.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on Covid-19 Points of Leverage, Travel Bans and Eradication · 2020-03-21T15:09:20.313Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW
As we approach the "endgame" where testing is ubiquitous and virus numbers get closer to 0, borders become more important, because adding 500 cases to an area with 1 case is much worse than adding 2000 cases to an area with 1000 cases (you have to think in logarithms).

Why would you want to ban travel indiscriminately once testing has become ubiquitous? You can instead bar entry only to the tiny minority of travelers who test positive.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on When will total cases in the EU surpass that of China? · 2020-03-18T18:11:15.743Z · score: 9 (2 votes) · LW · GW

And 18 or so hours later... Europe surpasses China.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on March Coronavirus Open Thread · 2020-03-18T02:18:14.478Z · score: 6 (4 votes) · LW · GW

The South Korean approach seems to be roughly as effective as the Chinese approach but significantly less costly and disruptive. SK managed to halt exponential growth and currently cases are increasing linearly at a rate of 75 or so per day. This has been achieved without lockdowns or extensive border closings. Instead, the key ingredient appears to be rapid, extensive and largely free testing, and an educational campaign that stresses the importance of hand washing and staying at home.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on When will total cases in the EU surpass that of China? · 2020-03-17T17:15:15.620Z · score: 9 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Over the past few days, cases in Europe have been doubling every four days, while cases in China have been increasing linearly, at a rate of 25 cases or so per day. There are currently around 71k cumulative cases in Europe, and 81k cumulative cases in China. So we should expect Europe to surpass China in 18 hours or so.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on March Coronavirus Open Thread · 2020-03-15T18:34:06.797Z · score: 6 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Thanks for putting this list together.

I stopped looking after Bucky supplied the link to the MIDAS network list, since it seemed so comprehensive.

For models that incorporate actual healthcare capacity, see this thread. One limitation of the models I've seen is that they fail to account for growth in such capacity. China responded to the realization that they didn't have enough hospitals by quickly building more hospitals. Maybe Western countries are less competent than China and it will take them longer to build the needed capacity. But it seems implausible that they will be so incompetent that capacity-building efforts will not make a significant difference.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on A practical out-of-the-box solution to slow down COVID-19: Turn up the heat · 2020-03-14T17:51:44.442Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

My understanding is that he never tested positive; rather, it was reported that he tested positive, and then that he tested negative. (The link you provide says otherwise, but Telesur is not a reliable source.)

Comment by pablo_stafforini on A practical out-of-the-box solution to slow down COVID-19: Turn up the heat · 2020-03-14T13:19:28.416Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Note that Bolsonaro does not have the virus.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on March Coronavirus Open Thread · 2020-03-12T23:05:25.858Z · score: 40 (12 votes) · LW · GW

Update: the positions are now filled. See here for the official announcement.

Help wanted: pandemic.metaculus.com project lead

The high interest and proliferation of questions on the novel coronavirus calls for dedicated attention, which led to the formation of pandemic.metaculus.com. Managing it, though, is straining Metaculus's very limited staff and community moderator team. Contingent on acquisition of funding (which Metaculus is working to secure), Metaculus is looking to bring onboard someone to help manage this project. Components would include:

  • Managing the pandemic site and question series as a sort of "editor in chief" working with the community moderators (as Tamay does now for Metaculus in general.)
  • Helping build data products and analyses out of the questions and results.

The above indicates a range of skills including pretty strong understanding of Metaculus, and data analysis capability. Science background would be great, and huge bonus for actual medical knowledge. This is probably a part-time role but full-ish time is also imaginable depending upon the person, the duration, and funding.

If you're interested, please send a note and CV to jobs@metaculus.com.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on March Coronavirus Open Thread · 2020-03-11T14:53:48.934Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Another basic SIR model, which considers impacts on hospital capacity (and resulting deaths) from infection controls of various degrees.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on March Coronavirus Open Thread · 2020-03-11T14:47:10.620Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Wonderful, thank you so much.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on March Coronavirus Open Thread · 2020-03-10T00:05:00.848Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Buck's tentative Guesstimate model of Wei Dai's "hospital crowding" catastrophic scenario. Many folks have already seen his comment, but I'm posting a link to it for completeness.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on March Coronavirus Open Thread · 2020-03-10T00:02:25.020Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Daniel Filan's Guesstimate model on whether he should stay home for work. Many folks have already seen his comment, but I'm posting a link to it for completeness.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on March Coronavirus Open Thread · 2020-03-09T13:37:35.782Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

The Medium article that Wei Dai cited in his comment links to an "open-source model". I haven't examined it closely, though I did notice that some of the formulas are weirdly constructed (e.g. using INDIRECT rather than absolute cell references) and that some of the assumed parameters are overly pessimistic (e.g. a 3.4% CFR).

Comment by pablo_stafforini on March Coronavirus Open Thread · 2020-03-09T01:55:45.686Z · score: 5 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Here's a basic SIR model created by Metaculus user Isinlor. (I haven't looked at it, so don't interpret this comment as an endorsement.)

Comment by pablo_stafforini on March Coronavirus Open Thread · 2020-03-09T01:22:16.306Z · score: 30 (14 votes) · LW · GW

I think it would be valuable to compile a list of estimates of basic epidemiological parameters of the coronavirus, such as incubation rate, doubling times, probability of symptomatic infections, delay from disease onset to death, probability of death among symptomatics, and so on. I find that my inability to model various scenarios accurately is often due to uncertainty about one or more of these parameters (uncertainty relative to what I suspect current expert knowledge to be, which is of course also uncertain to a considerable degree).

Comment by pablo_stafforini on Ineffective Response to COVID-19 and Risk Compensation · 2020-03-09T00:16:38.848Z · score: 10 (3 votes) · LW · GW
I've seen a marked uptick in people actually washing hands thoroughly in bathrooms, which is small-n observation but I found very surprising.

To add another anecdote, Tyler Cowen also noticed this.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on Rescuing the Extropy Magazine archives · 2020-02-20T23:06:23.833Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Nine months ago PhilGoetz offered to send you all the missing issues except number 2. However, I don't see those issues on the H+pedia entry. Would it be possible for you guys to communicate so that this material becomes publicly accessible? Thanks.

Edit: I realized I can edit the H+pedia and host the files on my website, so I just messaged Phil myself. Waiting for his reply.

Edit2 (three months later): No reply from Phil.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on Does anyone have a recommended resource about the research on behavioral conditioning, reinforcement, and shaping? · 2020-02-19T13:27:37.319Z · score: 9 (3 votes) · LW · GW

One book I've seen mentioned is Stephen Ray Flora's The power of reinforcement. I read it a decade or so ago, and although my memory of it isn't fresh, I remember not being too impressed by it. In particular, the book struck me as being written from the perspective of an apologist of reinforcement rather than a neutral, curious observer. Still, the book surveys the field in some detail and I think one could learn quite a bit from reading it.

Luke Muehlhauser wrote a post summarizing the literature, which provides lots of references for further reading.

Incidentally (and this isn't an answer to your question, but a comment on the post you mention), I would take any self-experimentation findings by Seth Roberts with a big grain of salt. Gwern summarizes:

n=1 self-experiments aren't that bad. The problem is, to speak a bit ill of the dead, Roberts systematically rejected randomization, blinding, appropriate statistical analysis, ignored power, published only anecdotes that supported his views, and wasn't interested in fixing any of these problems even when they were very cheap to add (and he was well aware of the endless shortcuts he was taking - though he never criticized his own work the way he was able to criticize, say, Posit Science's brain-game studies). When I did better self-experiments, I often reached different results.
Comment by pablo_stafforini on Some quick notes on hand hygiene · 2020-02-08T23:17:38.375Z · score: 6 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Here.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on Some quick notes on hand hygiene · 2020-02-06T12:34:24.877Z · score: 13 (8 votes) · LW · GW

I agree. It is very common for field experts and authorities to issue directives without considering the associated time costs, especially when these costs are small when measured relative to the relevant behavioral unit (e.g. 30 seconds per hand washing). If you consider each directive individually, it often seems that the benefits justify the costs. But when both costs and benefits are aggregated over time, a different, more pessimistic picture often emerges. I wash my hands ~10 times per day, and so invest ~30 hours per year on this habit. Is this sacrifice worth it? It isn't obvious to me that it is.

I am reminded of that satirical post where Rob Wiblin describes his "daily routine for maximum productivity", comprised of dozens of activities many of which seem individually worth doing. Clearly, however, the routine as a whole is a net waste of time, since it would require a large fraction of the day to complete, thereby decreasing productivity overall. This suggests that our "micro intuitions" aren't very reliable, and that we should check them by considering the big picture.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on The Bentham Prize at Metaculus · 2020-02-04T13:30:46.064Z · score: 10 (6 votes) · LW · GW

First round of prizes announced. Congratulations to user haven and to our very own AABoyles and PeterHurford!

Comment by pablo_stafforini on My Anki patterns · 2020-01-08T23:13:33.380Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Thanks. ~6 s per card seems faster than average, judging from other user reports I've seen (e.g. here). It appears that Wozniak's formula underestimates time costs, which is also in line with Gwern's remarks here.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on New Year's Predictions Thread · 2019-12-31T19:22:06.325Z · score: 7 (3 votes) · LW · GW

As far as I can tell, every single one of your predictions has now been falsified by reality.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on My Anki patterns · 2019-12-03T14:57:30.687Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

In case anyone is interested, here's a spreadsheet I just created that computes the daily costs, after arbitrarily many years, of reviewing a deck which has been growing by a constant number of cards per year.

An interesting implication is that after three years one has incurred roughly 50% of the total time costs of reviewing a card, assuming a time horizon of 50 years. So if Michal keeps adding new cards at the same pace, his daily costs will converge to minutes. Still, it will take another 12 years for the costs to increase by another 50%, so even after 15 years his daily costs will be minutes.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on My Anki patterns · 2019-12-03T13:27:37.723Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Great post!

You say you've been using Anki for ~3 years and have 37k cards. Assuming you've been adding cards at a roughly constant rate over this period, that's ~12.3k cards per year, or ~34 cards per day. Relying on Piotr Wozniak's formula for approximating the daily time costs of studying a single card in a given year

we can see that it costs 2.03E-03 mins to study a card the 1st year, 7.40E-04 mins the 2nd year, and 4.18E-04 mins the 3rd year. Multiplying by 12.3k, we get about 25, 9 and 5 minutes for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd years, respectively. So, on your 3rd (most recent) year of study, this calculation indicates that you should be spending about minutes per day in reviews. Does this match your experience?

I was motivated to calculate this because upon reading your post I felt that reviewing so many cards would impose very high time costs. But after crunching the numbers, the costs seem considerably lower than I expected.

Comment by pablo_stafforini on RAISE post-mortem · 2019-11-25T14:31:40.116Z · score: 8 (4 votes) · LW · GW
I had visited Berkeley around that time, and word was out about a new prediction that the singularity was only 15 years ahead.

Can you say more about this?

Comment by pablo_stafforini on RAISE post-mortem · 2019-11-25T14:28:45.608Z · score: 5 (3 votes) · LW · GW
I've been collecting a list of postmortem/retrospective posts on LessWrong

Is this list publicly available? A search for 'postmortems' on your user page produced no results.