## LESSWRONGLW

ozziegooen

I'm currently researching forecasting and epistemics as part of the Quantified Uncertainty Research Institute.

# Sequences

Squiggle
Prediction-Driven Collaborative Reasoning Systems

# Wiki Contributions

Yea; that's not a feature that exists yet.

Thanks for the feedback!

Not yet. There are a few different ways of specifying the distribution, but we don't yet have options for doing from the 25th&75th percentiles. It would be nice to do eventually. (Might be very doable to add in a PR, for a fairly motivated person).
https://www.squiggle-language.com/docs/Api/Dist#normal

You can type in, normal({p5: 10, p95:30}). It should later be possible to say normal({p25: 10, p75:30}).

Separately; when you say "25, 50, 75 percentiles"; do you mean all at once? This would be an overspecification; you only need two points. Also; would you want this to work for normal/lognormal distributions, or anything else?

Mostly. The core math bits of Guesstimate were a fairly thin layer on Math.js. Squiggle has replaced much of the MathJS reliance with custom code (custom interpreter + parser, extra distribution functionality).

If things go well, I think it would make sense to later bring Squiggle in as the main language for Guesstimate models. This would be a breaking change, and quite a bit of work, but would make Guesstimate much more powerful.

Really nice to see this. I broadly agree. I've been concerned with boards for a while.

I think that "mediocre boards" are one of the greatest weaknesses of EA right now. We have tons of small organizations, and I suspect that most of these have mediocre or fairly ineffective boards. This is one of the main reasons I don't like the pattern of us making lots of tiny orgs; because we have to set up yet one more board for each one, and good board members are in short supply.

I'd like to see more thinking here. Maybe we could really come up with alternative structures.

For example, I've been thinking of something like "good defaults" as a rule of thumb for orgs that get a lot of EA funding.
- They choose an effective majority of board members from a special pool of people who have special training and are well trusted by key EA funders.
- There's a "board service" organization that's paid to manage the processes of boards. This service would arrange meetings, make sure that a bunch of standards are getting fulfilled, and would have the infrastructure in place to recruit new EDs when needed. These services can be paid by the organization.

Basically, I'd want to see us treat small nonprofits as sub-units of a smoothly-working bureaucracy or departments in a company. This would involve a lot of standardization and control. Obviously this could backfire a lot if the controlling groups ever do a bad job; but (1) if the funders go bad, things might be lost anyway, and (2), I think the expected harm of this could well be less than the expected benefit.

For what it's worth, I think I prefer the phrase,
"Failing with style"

Minor point:

I suggest people experiment with holiday ideas and report back, before we announce anything "official". Experimentation seems really nice on this topic, that seems like the first step.

In theory we could have a list of holiday ideas, and people randomly choose a few of them, try them out, then report back.

The more sophisticated system is Squiggle. It's basically a prototype. I haven't updated it since the posts I made about it last year.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/i5BWqSzuLbpTSoTc4/squiggle-an-overview

Update:
I think some of the graphs could be better represented with upfront fixed costs.

When you buy a book, you pay for it via your time to read it, but you also have the fixed initial fee of the book.

This fee isn't that big of a deal for most books that you have a >20% chance of reading, but it definitely is for academic articles or similar.