Posts

Meetup : London Social Meetup, 18/01/2015 2015-01-14T17:49:45.075Z · score: 2 (2 votes)
Meetup : London First 2015 Meetup, 04/01/2015 2014-12-31T18:01:57.256Z · score: 2 (2 votes)
Meetup : London Social Meetup, 21/12/2014 2014-12-15T23:54:42.764Z · score: 2 (2 votes)
Meetup : London Social Meetup, 07/12/2014 2014-12-01T15:58:30.302Z · score: 1 (2 votes)
Open thread, 9-15 June 2014 2014-06-09T13:07:20.908Z · score: 5 (5 votes)
Meetup : London Social Meetup (possibly) in the Sun 2014-06-06T11:37:16.899Z · score: 3 (3 votes)
Open Thread, May 5 - 11, 2014 2014-05-05T10:35:45.563Z · score: 4 (4 votes)
Open Thread April 16 - April 22, 2014 2014-04-16T07:05:36.020Z · score: 6 (6 votes)
Meetup : Socialising in the Sun, London 13/04 2014-04-09T16:22:12.973Z · score: 4 (4 votes)
Open Thread April 8 - April 14 2014 2014-04-08T11:11:50.069Z · score: 5 (5 votes)
Meetup : London Social Meetups - 23/03 and 30/03 2014-03-22T12:21:42.893Z · score: 4 (4 votes)
Meetup : London Games Meetup 09/03 [VENUE CHANGE: PENDEREL'S OAK!], + Social 16/02 2014-02-27T16:07:05.661Z · score: 4 (4 votes)
Identity and Death 2014-02-18T11:35:49.393Z · score: 12 (18 votes)
Meetup : London Practical Meetup - Calibration Training! 2013-12-01T12:46:18.061Z · score: 4 (4 votes)
Meetup : London Social Meetup, 01/12/2013 2013-11-27T16:45:28.355Z · score: 4 (4 votes)
Meetup : London Social Meetup, 24/11/2013 [Back to the Shakespeare's Head] 2013-11-18T10:38:17.739Z · score: 2 (2 votes)
Googling is the first step. Consider adding scholarly searches to your arsenal. 2013-05-07T13:30:38.019Z · score: 19 (22 votes)
Meetup : 18/11 London Meetup 2012-10-31T16:24:41.431Z · score: 1 (2 votes)

Comments

Comment by tenoke on Open Thread August 2018 · 2018-08-16T18:06:19.130Z · score: 20 (5 votes) · LW · GW

Does the Quantum Physics Sequence hold up?

It's been the better part of a decade since I read it (and I knew a lot less back then), and recently I've been curious about getting a refresher. I am not going to pick up a textbook or spend too much time on this, but if it doesn't hold up what alternative/supplementary resources would you recommend (the less math-heavy the better, although obviously some of the math is inescapable)?

Comment by tenoke on Leaving beta: Voting on moving to LessWrong.com · 2018-03-12T16:13:20.032Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I haven't gotten the voting link (I've now emailed to ask), but I am sadly already pretty negatively surprised at how lesserwrong.com has turned out (props to the maker of greaterwrong, though) and very much hope that it doesn't completely replace LessWrong.com. Even if LessWrong.com is just killed and made read-only (since after all the efforts to migrate people here, it is even more unlikely that the original lesswrong will get any new use), that's a better outcome for me.

I wouldn't even post this, but I hear a lot more people sharing the same opinion (selection effects apply), but (selection effects again) few of them are here to actually say it.

Comment by tenoke on HOWTO: Screw Up The LessWrong Survey and Bring Great Shame To Your Family · 2017-10-15T09:21:08.840Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Yeah, this survey was pretty disappointing - I had to stop myself from making a negative comment after I took it (though someone else had). I am glad you realized it, too I guess. Even things like starting with a bunch of questions about the new lesswrong-inspired site, and the spacing between words were off, let alone the things you mention.

I am honestly a little sad that someone more competent in matters like these like gwern didn't take over (as I always assumed will happen if yvain gave up on doing it), because half-hearted attempts like this probably hurt a lot more than help - e.g. someone coming back in 4 months and seeing how we've went down to only 300 (!) responders in the annual survey is going to assume LW is even more dead than it really is. This reasoning goes beyond the survey.

Comment by tenoke on LW2.0 now in public beta (you'll need to reset your password to log in) · 2017-09-24T11:04:36.636Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

So there's no way for us to login with our regular accounts before the launch? Is it scheduled for anytime soon?

I'd hate to keep seeing all the constant promotion for your site without being able to check it out (since I am not really up for using a temporary account).

Comment by tenoke on Open thread, August 21 - August 27, 2017 · 2017-08-21T13:55:32.589Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

The fact that you engage with the article and share it, might suggest to the author that he did everything right.

True, but this is one of the less bad articles that have Terminator references (as it makes a bit more sense in this specific context) so I mind less that I am sharing it. It's mostly significant insofar as being one I saw today that prompted me to make a template email.

The idea that your email will discourage the author from writing similar articles might be mistaken.

I can see it having no influence on some journalist, but again

I am not sure how big the impact will be, but after the email is already drafted sending it to new people is pretty low effort and there's the potential that some journalists will think twice..

..

Secondly, calling autonomous weapons killer robots isn't far of the mark.

It's still fairly misleading, although a lot less than in AGI discussions.

The policy question of whether or not to allow autonomous weapons is distinct from AGI.

I am not explicitly talking about AGI either.

Comment by tenoke on Open thread, August 21 - August 27, 2017 · 2017-08-21T12:03:14.484Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

After reading yet another article which mentions the phrase 'killer robots' 5 times and has a photo of terminator (and robo-cop for a bonus), I've drafted a short email asking the author to stop using this vivid but highly misleading metaphor.

I'm going to start sending this same email to other journalists that do the same from now on. I am not sure how big the impact will be, but after the email is already drafted sending it to new people is pretty low effort and there's the potential that some journalists will think twice before referencing Terminator in AI Safety discussions, potentially improving the quality of the discourse a little.

The effect of this might be slightly larger if more people do this.

Comment by tenoke on Open thread, August 7 - August 13, 2017 · 2017-08-10T00:35:57.394Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

At the moment that seems to require a human machine learning expert and recent Google experiments suggest that they are confident to develop an API that can do this without machine learning experts being involved.

At a recent LW discussion someone told me that this kind of research doesn't even count as an attempt to develop AGI.

Not in itself, sure, but yeah there was the bit about the progress made so you wont need a ML engineer for developing the right net to solve a problem. However, there was also the bit whee they have nets doing novel research (e.g. new activation functions with better performance than sota, novel architectures etc.). And for going further in that direction, they just want more compute which they're going to be getting more and more of.

I mean, if we've entered the point where we AI research is a problem tackalable by (narrow) AI, which can further benefit from that research and apply it to make further improvements faster/wtih more accuracy.. then maybe there is something to potentially worry about .

Unless of course you think that AGI will be built in such a different way that no/very few DL findings are likely to be applicable. But even then I wouldn't be convinced that doing this completely separate AGI research wont also be the kind of problem that DL wont be able to handle - as AGI research is in the end a "narrow" problem.

Comment by tenoke on Open thread, August 7 - August 13, 2017 · 2017-08-09T17:19:37.684Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Karpathy mentions offhand in this video that he thinks he has the correct approach to AGI but doesnt say what it is. Before that he lists a few common approaches, so I assume it's not one of those. What do you think he suggests?

P.S. If this worries you that AGI is closer than you expected do not watch Jeff dean's overview lecture of DL research at Google.

Comment by tenoke on Open thread, Dec. 05 - Dec. 11, 2016 · 2016-12-09T19:37:32.911Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

More quality content (either in terms of discussions or actual posts).

P.S. I do see how that might not be especially helpful.

Comment by tenoke on European Community Weekend 2016 · 2015-12-20T12:20:22.544Z · score: 8 (8 votes) · LW · GW

What is the latest time that I can sign up and realistically expect that there'll be spaces left? I am interested, but I can't really commit 10 months in advance.

Comment by tenoke on Open Thread, May 18 - May 24, 2015 · 2015-05-21T14:36:23.067Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Apparently the new episode of Morgan Freeman's Through the Wormhole is on the Simulation Hypothesis.

Comment by tenoke on We Should Introduce Ourselves Differently · 2015-05-19T20:17:38.782Z · score: 3 (5 votes) · LW · GW

If someone is going to turn away at the first sight an unknown term, then they have no chance in lasting here (I mean, imagine what'll happen when they see the Sequences).

Comment by tenoke on Open thread, Mar. 16 - Mar. 22, 2015 · 2015-03-18T00:18:12.002Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Relevant thread

Comment by tenoke on Rationality: From AI to Zombies · 2015-03-13T11:25:23.595Z · score: 4 (4 votes) · LW · GW

Awesome! How large is it altogether (in words)?

Comment by tenoke on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 117 · 2015-03-09T14:00:44.975Z · score: 1 (3 votes) · LW · GW

"Harry should've thought to preserve the Death Eaters' heads" pretty much all of those complaints were made after the fact.

Did you even go to r/hpmor after Chapter 114? A bunch of people were saying that he should at least cool them, or try to revive them after he uses his time-turner or то incapacitate instead of kill or anything. Given that it also occurred to me immediately and was discussed multiple times on ##HPMOR, I'm pretty sure there was no hindsight involved..

Comment by tenoke on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 114 + chapter 115 · 2015-03-04T18:49:02.571Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

For many people it will look too easy, but only with the benefit of hindsight.

Only with the benefit of hindsight? I bet 3 people that the solution won't involve PT, 2 of them within hour(s) of chapter 113 coming out, as it was the most obvious (while impausible for some) solution for many people. Specifically transfiguring the tip of wand/leg/earth/air into nanowires was mentioned by so many people within minutes of posting the chapter.. There was no hindsight involved.

Comment by tenoke on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 114 + chapter 115 · 2015-03-04T18:01:42.862Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I'd like that slightly more, but such minor changes barely address the issue. Also, I am already suspecting that the way in which Harry will unparalyze himself after his improbable PT rampage is just going to involve some other unlikely feet.

Comment by tenoke on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 114 + chapter 115 · 2015-03-04T13:51:13.725Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Yes HPMOR has been generally more believable, except for the one scene that matters in the whole book. At any rate, I am not sure if defeating Voldemort by use of an artefact - the Elder Wand is any less believable than using transfigured nanowires in secret against a much smarter version of Voldemort who forgets to use shields/wards/attention in order to catch harry this one time, and lets him have his wand when he doesn't need it.

Comment by tenoke on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 114 + chapter 115 · 2015-03-04T13:37:54.906Z · score: 1 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I didn't really check the LessWrong thread earlier, but I am happy to see that people here are a lot less willing to accept the unsatisfying solution than at r/HPMOR.

I used to really enjoy HPMOR, but it is now basically ruined for me - Voldemort holding the idiot ball, the one time where things really matter, and this is also when Harry's untested strategies work like a charm on the first try without him being noticed? I guess I was too quick to praise Eliezer on being able to write more believable scenes than Rowling.

What disappoints me almost as much is that the original answer was (from all that I can gather) to mainly just use the swerving hex. Hahahaha.

Comment by tenoke on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, February 2015, chapter 109 · 2015-02-24T15:46:14.307Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

As with the original horcrux spell, I would only be able to enter a victim who contacted the physical horcrux... and I had hidden my unnumbered horcruxes in places where nobody would ever find them.

"My remaining hope was the horcruxes I had hidden in the hopeless idiocy of my youth. Imbuing them into ancient lockets, instead of anonymous pebbles; guarding them beneath wells of poison in the center of a lake of Inferi, instead of portkeying them into the sea. If someone found one of those, and penetrated their ridiculous protections... but that seemed like a distant hope.

The text suggests that Riddle was stupider at a younger age, which is when he made v1 horcruxes, and used story-like hidding places like those mentioned above. Then later on when he was porbably at least 'twice [harry's] age' he grew wizer, made the horcrux v2, and started hiding them well. Then he dies, and finds out that his only hope is the horcruxes from his youth, which weren't hidden well, and it is suggested that Quirrel found one of those, so likely a v1 horcrux.

At any rate, even if we just focus on the 'one of my earliest horcruxes' part, that still heavily implies a v1 horcrux.

Comment by tenoke on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, February 2015, chapter 109 · 2015-02-24T13:53:42.191Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

The thought of making a better horcrux, of not being content with the spell I had already learned... this thought did not come to me until I had grasped the stupidity of ordinary people, and realised which follies of theirs I had imitated.

This apparently happened significantly later in his life. However

"Nine years and four months after that night, a wandering adventurer named Quirinus Quirrell won past the protections guarding one of my earliest horcruxes.

Doesn't this suggest that Quirrell stumbled upon a horcrux v1, given that it was one of the earliest horcruxes, and that it was 'hidden' by the less wise Riddle?

I suspect Eliezer just didn't notice this, or that the explanation is that after inventing v2, Riddle went back and upgraded all his old horcruxes or something. The alternative explanation is that all v1 horcruxes upgraded automatically when he went for the v2, however we know that Harry is also a v1 horcrux, so that wouldnt make sense.

Comment by tenoke on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, February 2015, chapters 105-107 · 2015-02-19T02:10:01.529Z · score: 4 (4 votes) · LW · GW

I thought it is at least reasonable to suspect that the stone from Chapter 96 might actually be the resurrection stone.

Neither of them noticed the tall stone worn as though from a thousand years of age, upon it a line within a circle within a triangle glowing ever so faintly silver, like the light which had shone from Harry's wand

Comment by tenoke on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, February 2015, chapters 105-107 · 2015-02-17T17:02:12.564Z · score: 7 (7 votes) · LW · GW

Fwiw, I am not convinced that Quirrel is definitely telling the truth there. For one, "Sslytherin not sstupid. Ssnake Animaguss not ssame as Parsselmouth. Would be huge flaw in sscheme."

Comment by tenoke on Why you should consider buying Bitcoin right now (Jan 2015) if you have high risk tolerance · 2015-01-15T14:09:15.781Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

The rewards of mining half every 4 years or so, and this can be sped up some if the total network hashrate doubles up a lot, but that's about it.

Comment by tenoke on Why you should consider buying Bitcoin right now (Jan 2015) if you have high risk tolerance · 2015-01-14T12:41:56.876Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Sure, but they are still a useful heuristic.

Comment by tenoke on Why you should consider buying Bitcoin right now (Jan 2015) if you have high risk tolerance · 2015-01-14T12:37:39.262Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Bitcoins are created at the same pace no matter what, so

  1. If there is a lot of demand for bitcoin, the price will necessarily increase since we can't mine at a faster rate.

  2. Miners don't affect the rate of bitcoin creation,

Comment by tenoke on Why you should consider buying Bitcoin right now (Jan 2015) if you have high risk tolerance · 2015-01-13T20:57:13.088Z · score: 17 (17 votes) · LW · GW

I used to believe that bitcoin is under-priced before, but there are so many agents involved in it now (including Wall Street), that I can't really convince myself that I know better than them - the market is too efficient for me.

Additionally, I'd be especially wary about buying based on arguments regarding the future price based on such obvious metrics, that many agents pay attention to.

Comment by tenoke on How subjective is attractiveness? · 2015-01-13T14:27:20.567Z · score: 2 (6 votes) · LW · GW

*There is a universal standard for beauty.

*Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Just putting this out there - beauty is in fact completely subjective, and there is no universal standard nor can there be one, HOWEVER, it seems to us like beauty is objective because humans are really genetically (and socially) similar to each other. This gives rise to preferences that are shared by large groups, and the illusion that the things which many people consider attractive are objectively beautiful.

Comment by tenoke on Programming-like activities? · 2015-01-08T18:22:32.540Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Statistics seems to satisfy all/almost all of those.

Comment by tenoke on Open thread Jan. 5-11, 2015 · 2015-01-06T15:43:26.229Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Yes, you can apply the Anthropic principle to the Fermi paradox, if you make some assumptions, but even then the case is nowhere near as clear-cut as applying it to the 'fine-tunenes' of the universe.

Comment by tenoke on 2014 Survey Results · 2015-01-04T13:36:49.915Z · score: 3 (5 votes) · LW · GW

I'm sceptical that this interpretation makes sense in a question about religious views, but I guess it may explain it.

Comment by tenoke on 2014 Survey Results · 2015-01-04T12:33:14.143Z · score: 4 (4 votes) · LW · GW

What's up with a whole 10% being 'Atheist and spiritual'? It doesn't seem to be a family thing, as you get only 4.9% with that belief in the family section, and the numbers don't match up with the P(Supernatural) question.

I was worried about this last year when it was 8.1%, and the number seems to be increasing. Is this Will Newsome's post-rationality faction or what?

Comment by tenoke on 2015 New Years Resolution Thread · 2014-12-27T15:12:14.793Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Not exactly a resolution, but given the time of the year it is close enough.

I am also responsible to get better, because I can, and because only a better version of me will be able to solve certain problems and help in some circumstances. Tsuyoku Naritai!

Comment by tenoke on Open thread, Dec. 22 - Dec. 28, 2014 · 2014-12-24T12:52:03.550Z · score: 5 (5 votes) · LW · GW

I think that's actually the motivation for the offshoot channel #lw-support

Comment by tenoke on Open thread, Dec. 22 - Dec. 28, 2014 · 2014-12-23T13:31:27.914Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

You haven't seen that one big sequence that mostly argues for one of the QM interpretations, have you?

Comment by tenoke on [Short, Meta] Should open threads be more frequent? · 2014-12-19T01:30:18.118Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I am against more frequent threads, as it'd likely make things harder to find and the individual discussions shorter and shallower.

What's the big problem with people waiting a few days to post when they want full exposure, anyway? It is a useful schelling point, and it ensures that those comments will get said exposure for a full week.

Comment by tenoke on [Short, Meta] Should open threads be more frequent? · 2014-12-19T01:18:16.740Z · score: 1 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Something like this was tried and it didn't really work..

Additionally, I generally don't see a real reason to make the OTs even more regular.

Comment by tenoke on xkcd on the AI box experiment · 2014-11-22T17:38:15.001Z · score: 27 (27 votes) · LW · GW

Close enough

Comment by tenoke on xkcd on the AI box experiment · 2014-11-22T10:41:35.780Z · score: 11 (11 votes) · LW · GW

Blasphemy, our mascot is a paperclip.

Comment by tenoke on Musk on AGI Timeframes · 2014-11-17T23:32:05.213Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

So what is actually going on at Deepmind right now? Should I be updating on this - is there new data in his estimate (i.e. something going on at deepmind that is more worrying than what we know from other sources)?

Comment by tenoke on 2014 Less Wrong Census/Survey · 2014-10-24T12:31:38.465Z · score: 37 (37 votes) · LW · GW

Hmm, I did worse on those calibration questions than I would've expected.

Comment by tenoke on 2014 Less Wrong Census/Survey - Call For Critiques/Questions · 2014-10-19T08:38:34.435Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

way fewer people use LW now

Citation needed.

Comment by tenoke on Open thread, Oct. 6 - Oct. 12, 2014 · 2014-10-08T13:13:37.617Z · score: 4 (4 votes) · LW · GW

Not exactly on topic, but If you are measuring something objective (like quantity of activity), and not something subjective (like quality of activity), you are usually better off using an objective test (like number of posts) instead of a subjective one (like a self-report Likert scale).

Comment by tenoke on Link: How Community Feedback Shapes User Behavior · 2014-09-17T16:53:16.400Z · score: 6 (6 votes) · LW · GW

This has already been posted on the Open Thread by NancyLebovitz.

Comment by tenoke on Open thread, September 15-21, 2014 · 2014-09-15T14:58:08.933Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

That's probably not it, given that I was one of Eugine's identified victims, and my karma has not changed in > 30 days.

Also, here is the discussion from the previous OT.

Comment by tenoke on Open thread, July 29-August 4, 2013 · 2014-08-12T19:07:57.971Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I got some responses, but I wouldn't say they were.

Comment by tenoke on Look for the Next Tech Gold Rush? · 2014-07-21T15:13:21.762Z · score: 1 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I just want to point out that you did start this thread to get decent financial advice, and in my opinion you are getting one now.

Comment by tenoke on Look for the Next Tech Gold Rush? · 2014-07-19T11:06:30.759Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

In other words, the efficient market hypothesis. There is no way to beat the market.

Yes, that is my line of reasoning and I was going to mention the emh, but after some introspection, I am not so sure if this collective pre-market [so to say] is actually very efficent due to the limited number of players among other things (although it might very well be, and I could argue that it should be).

Comment by tenoke on Look for the Next Tech Gold Rush? · 2014-07-19T10:54:37.905Z · score: 16 (16 votes) · LW · GW

While it is true that we (techies, rationalists, etc.) have the opportunity to catch a gold rush by becoming early adopterst, I suspect survivorship bias is at play. There are plenty of people who try to systematically 'grind' on such opportunitities but it doesn't pan out for many of them - I know some people who used to mass-register domains, and made a neglible profit in the end, people who jump on all sorts of altcoins, programmers who join a promising startup, where they sacrifice salary for equity, etc. Additionally, I also started messing with bitcoins in 2011, and while it has been quite profitable, I have made less than six figures, since I wasn't very serious about it at the time. And yes, in retrospect I can say that I should've put more money in (and kept them in bitcoin), but if I follow the same line of reasoning with all the seemingly-promising things I see, I might very well go broke.

I wish I was already an experienced gold rush spotter, so I could explain how best to do it, but as indicated above, I participated in the ones that I did more or less by luck.

Indeed, luck seems to be a big part of it, and the main action that you can take to facilitate the process is probably to put yourself in the right circles, so you can hear and look into innovations early on. This, however, is something that you and many people on here already do, and I doubt that you can easily find another intervention that will have as big of an impact on your chances to participate in a gold rush.

Comment by tenoke on [LINK] Another "LessWrongers are crazy" article - this time on Slate · 2014-07-18T07:01:30.593Z · score: 4 (4 votes) · LW · GW

Out of curiosity, what is the fraction of LW posters that believes this is a genuine risk?

From what I've seen, it seems like very few people who know the basilisk believe it (<10 maybe?), but there are some people (still not a lot, but significantly more than 10), who avoid the basilisk just in case it is dangerous, because of EY's reaction.