Metaculus has launched a new Prize. In contrast to its earlier contest, which was focused on information to improve forecasts of relevance to Animal Welfare, the Li Wenliang Prize is designed to incentivize such information gathering for and forecasts of COVID-19. Separate prize categories are being awarded for Forecasts, Analysis, and Question Development. Here are the existing questions available for forecasting and analysis.
There's been a noticeable trend over the last few years of in this community of writing long-form dating profiles. They have the benefit of being slightly costly signals, requiring significantly more time and attention and a much greater degree of disclosure than can be devoted to a traditional online dating...
I recently stumbled upon the Awesome Artificial Intelligence Ethics list, and was somewhat underwhelmed with its quality. While it has enough links to look like a good and useful Awesome List, I think I'd come away from it mostly confused and unsure where to go next. Some obvious oversights include:...
Metaculus has launched a new Prize. In contrast to its earlier contest, which was focused on information to improve forecasts of relevance to Animal Welfare, the Li Wenliang Prize is designed to incentivize such information gathering for and forecasts of COVID-19. Separate prize categories are being awarded for Forecasts, Analysis,...
Metaculus is running a small competition right now called the Bentham Prize. The premise is simple: contribute to the discussions of questions on Animal Welfare. The best record of contributions (subjectively assessed by human judges) will win. If you've been waiting for a reason to start practicing forecasting, this seems...
Science Journalist Julie Rehmeyer suffered from crippling Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. She's plugging a new book discussing her experiences with the not-medically-established treatment. The article in this link post discusses her decision to attempt the treatment, as well as first-order, meta-level suggestions about pursuing this type of independent research for other...
I have created the latest in a long history of independent, disorganized projects to scrape collections of posts from LessWrong into ebooks. A few selected examples of others: * jb55's lesswrong-print * dato's lesswrong-bundle * OneWhoFrog's lw2ebook * srlee309's LessWrongEBookCreator * natewind's lesswrong-fb2 ...Not to mention the official version of...
I'd be lying if I said I hadn't considered it 🤣
There's been a noticeable trend over the last few years of in this community of writing long-form dating profiles. They have the benefit of being slightly costly signals, requiring significantly more time and attention and a much greater degree of disclosure than can be devoted to a traditional online dating profile. But they are (at present) publicized and distributed manually, sharply limiting the possible audience.
Has anyone who's written one found a date (and subsequently, relationship) by doing so?
Separately, if you've written one, regardless of whether you met anyone because of it, do you believe it was worth the effort?
Advanced AI is a bomb, and we're about to set it off without any safety equipment.
For Policymakers
Suppose you find out that you had a disease will kill you. The prognosis is grim: with luck, you have a decade left. But maybe that's long enough to find a cure! How much is that cure worth to you?
Uncontrolled advanced AI could be the disease that kills you. The prognosis is grim: with luck, you have a decade left. But maybe that's long enough to find a cure! How much is that cure worth to you?
For Policymakers, original-ish
How hard did you think about killing the last cockroach you found in your house? We're the cockroaches, and we are in the AI's house. For policy-makers, variant on the anthill argument, original source unknown
Fair point. It does seems like "pandemic" is a more useful category if it doesn't include a whole bunch of "things that happened but didn't kill a lot of people."
Without aging, COVID-19 would not be a global pandemic, since the death rate in individuals below 30 years old is extremely low.
A pandemic is an epidemic that occurs across multiple continents. Note that we can accordingly envision a pandemic with a death rate of zero, but a pandemic none-the-less. Accordingly, I think you've somewhat overstated the punchline about aging and COVID-19, though I agree with the broader point that if aging were effectively halted at 30, the death rates would be much, much lower.
If I wasn't trying to not-spend-time-on-this, I would fit a Random Forest or a Neural Network (rather than a logistic regression) to capture some non-linear signal, and, when it predicted well, fire up an optimizer to see how much in which stats really helps.
Fun! I wish I had a lot more time to spend on this, but here's a brief and simple basis for a decision:
library(readr)
library(dplyr)
library(magrittr)
training <- read_csv("https://raw.githubusercontent.com/H-B-P/d-and-d-sci/main/d_and_d_sci.csv")
training %<>%
dplyr::mutate(outcome = ifelse(result=="succeed", 1, 0))
model <- glm(outcome ~ cha + con + dex + int + str + wis, data = training, family = "binomial")
summary(model)
start <- data.frame(str = c(6), con = c(14), dex = c(13), int = c(13), wis = c(12), cha = c(4))
predict.glm(model, start, type="response")
# > 0.3701247
wise <- data.frame(str = c(6), con = c(15), dex = c(13), int = c(13), wis = c(20), cha = c(5))
predict.glm(model, wise, type="response")
# > 0.7314005
charismatic <- data.frame(str = c(6), con = c(14), dex = c(13), int = c(13), wis = c(12), cha = c(14))
predict.glm(model, charismatic, type="response")
# > 0.6510629
wiseAndCharismatic <- data.frame(str = c(6), con = c(14), dex = c(13), int = c(13), wis = c(20), cha = c(6))
predict.glm(model, wiseAndCharismatic, type="response")
# > 0.73198
Gonna go with wiseAndCharismatic (+8 Wisdom, +2 Charisma).
It would also be very useful to build some GPT feature "visualization" tools ASAP.
Do you have anything more specific in mind? I see the Image Feature Visualization tool, but in my mind it's basically doing exactly what you're already doing by comparing GPT-2 and GPT-3 snippets.
I recently stumbled upon the Awesome Artificial Intelligence Ethics list, and was somewhat underwhelmed with its quality. While it has enough links to look like a good and useful Awesome List, I think I'd come away from it mostly confused and unsure where to go next. Some obvious oversights include:
to list on the off chance anyone happens upon this list and wants to work their way up to the actual state of research.I'm going to make some pull requests, but I can only suggest what I know about. Perhaps you can help?
Anything sufficiently far enough away from you is causally isolated from you. Because of the fundamental constraints of physics, information from there can never reach here, and vice versa. you may as well be in separate universes.
The performance of AlphaGo got me thinking about algorithms we can't access. In the case of AlphaGo, we implemented the algorithm (AlphaGo) which discovered some strategies we could never have created. (Go Master Ke Jie famously said "I would go as far as to say not a single human has touched the edge of the truth of Go.")
Perhaps we can imagine a sort of "logical causal isolation." An algorithm is logically causally isolated from us if
Metaculus has launched a new Prize. In contrast to its earlier contest, which was focused on information to improve forecasts of relevance to Animal Welfare, the Li Wenliang Prize is designed to incentivize such information gathering for and forecasts of COVID-19. Separate prize categories are being awarded for Forecasts, Analysis, and Question Development. Here are the existing questions available for forecasting and analysis.
Metaculus is running a small competition right now called the Bentham Prize. The premise is simple: contribute to the discussions of questions on Animal Welfare. The best record of contributions (subjectively assessed by human judges) will win.
If you've been waiting for a reason to start practicing forecasting, this seems as good as any. It's gotten off to a slow start (in part because the Metaculus community has become quite distracted by another matter), so the field is wide open!
It occurs to me that the world could benefit from more affirmative fact checker. Existing fact checkers are appropriately rude to people who publicly make false claims, but there's not much in the way of celebration of people who make difficult true claims. For example, Politifact awards "Pants on Fire" for bald lies, but only "True" for bald truths. I think there should be an even higher-status classification for true claims that run counter to the interests of the speaker. For example, we could award "Bayesian Stars" to figures who publicly update on new evidence, or "Bullets Bitten" to public figures who promulgate true evidence that weakens their arguments.
It occurs to me that "Following one's passion" is terrible advice at least in part because of the lack of diversity in the activities we encourage children to pursue. It follows that encouraging children to participate in activities with very high-competition job markets (e.g. sports, the arts) may be a substantial drag on economic growth. After 5 minutes of search, I could not find research on this relationship. (It seems the state of scholarship on the topic is restricted to models in which participation in extracurriculars early in childhood leads to better metrics later in childhood.) This may merit a more careful assessment.
Attention Conservation Warning: I envision a model which would demonstrate something obvious, and decide the world probably wouldn't benefit from its existence.
The standard publication bias is that we must be 95% certain a described phenomenon exists before a result is publishable (at which time it becomes sufficiently "confirmed" to treat the phenomenon as a factual claim). But the statistical confidence of a phenomenon conveys interesting and useful information regardless of what that confidence is.
Consider the space of all possible relationships: most of these are going to be absurd (e.g. the relationship between number of minted pennies and number of atoms in moons of Saturn), and exhibit no correlation. Some will exhibit weak
Science Journalist Julie Rehmeyer suffered from crippling Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. She's plugging a new book discussing her experiences with the not-medically-established treatment. The article in this link post discusses her decision to attempt the treatment, as well as first-order, meta-level suggestions about pursuing this type of independent research for other conditions. It's nothing groundbreaking (especially to anyone who read Inadequate Equilibria), but it's an interesting to see the same idea being pitched to a wider audience.
(h/t Andrew Gelman)
I have created the latest in a long history of independent, disorganized projects to scrape collections of posts from LessWrong into ebooks. A few selected examples of others:
jb55's lesswrong-print
dato's lesswrong-bundle
OneWhoFrog's lw2ebook
srlee309's LessWrongEBookCreator
natewind's lesswrong-fb2
...Not to mention the official version of the Sequences. So, why could we possibly need another?
If LessWrong 2.0 is voted to replace LessWrong Classic (see point 4), All the existing aggregators will break. This isn't a big deal, since they really only need to run once (correctly) in order to create the ebook, but anyone who wants to modify them and scrape new ebooks won't be able to use them.
Separately, Scott Alexander's Codex is open for reading now
I was looking at the marketing materials for a charity (which I'll call X) over the weekend, when I saw something odd at the bottom of their donation form:
Check here to increase your donation by 3% to defray the cost of credit card processing.
It's not news to me that credit card companies charge merchants a cut of every transaction. But the ramifications of this for charitable contributions had never sunk in. I use my credit card for all of the purchases I can (I get pretty good cash-back rates). Automatically drafting from my checking account (like a check, only without the check) costs X nothing. So I've increased the effectiveness of my charitable contributions by a small (<3%) amount by performing what amounts to a paperwork tweak.
If you use a credit card for donations, please think about making this tweak as well!
Thanks for this! Just to clarify what I meant by "manual distribution", if you've written a dating profile outside of a dating app, you've basically got to share a link if you want anyone to read it (see e.g. this post).