All of roland's Comments + Replies

that it’s reasonably for Eliezer to not think that marginally writing more will drastically change things from his perspective.

Scientific breakthroughs live on the margins, so if he has guesses on how to achieve alignment sharing them could make a huge difference.

I have guesses

Even a small probability of solving alignment should have big expected utility modulo exfohazard. So why not share your guesses?

Weighted step ups instead of squats

Lunges vs weighted step ups?

2romeostevensit7mo
I can't get full range of motion without a significant box height (18 inches). And that's with leaning into it to get more ROM. Like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqLMErck6A4
4romeostevensit8mo
Hold fifty pounds in each hand and add up how much you are loading a single leg. In my case it's 260lbs.

why would a weighted step up be better and safer than a squat?

3romeostevensit8mo
1/2-1/3 the spine loading for the same stress on the legs

Weighted step ups instead of squats can be loaded quite heavy.

What are the advantages of weighted step ups vs squats without bending your knees too much? Squats would have the advantage of greater stability and only having to do half the reps.

3romeostevensit8mo
I don't understand, a quad focused exercise is inherently involving the knee

Valence-Owning

Could you please give a definition of the word valence? The definition I found doesn't make sense to me: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/valence

3Rob Bensinger1y
Basically: whether something is good or bad, enjoyable or unpleasant, desirable or undesirable, interesting or boring, etc. It's the aspect of experience that evaluates some things as better or worse to varying degrees and in various respects.

1.1. It’s the first place large enough to contain a plausible explanation for how the AGI itself actually came to be.

According to this criterion we would be in a simulation because there is no plausible explanation of how the Universe was created.

1mruwnik1y
This is a valid point. It can easily be extended to the agent via last thursdayism. 
  1. exfohazard
  2. expohazard(based on exposition)

Based on the latin prefix ex-

IMHO better than outfohazard.

The key here would be an exact quantification: how much carbs do these cultures consume in relation to the amount of physical activity.

2ChristianKl2y
Herman Pontzer did such a study for the Hadza who eat a lot of honey.  He came to conclusions like "To Pontzer, this means that the human body seems to adjust to physical activity by saving calories on other physiological processes to keep total energy expenditure in check." 

Has the hypothesis

excess sugar/carbs -> metabolic syndrome -> constant hunger and overeating -> weight gain

been disproved?

1Dan Hopkins2y
I think the standard answer is that some traditional cultures rely quite heavily on carbs with very low incidence of obesity. Some even eat substantial amounts of sugar (e.g. as honey).

Rather, my read of the history is that MIRI was operating in an argumentative argument where:

argumentative environment?

If we have to use voice, we can still try to ask hard questions and get fast answers, but because of the lower rate itâs hard to push far past human limits.

You could go with IQ-test-type progressively harder number sequences.Use big numbers that are hard to calculate in your head.

E.g. start with a random 3 digit number, each following number is the previous squared minus 17. If he/she figures it out in 1 second he must be an ai.

If you like Yudkowskian fiction, Wertifloke = Eliezer Yudkowsky

The Waves Arisen https://wertifloke.wordpress.com/

Is it ok to omit facts to you lawyer? I mean is the lawyer entitled to know everything about the client?

2ryan_b4y
Everything about the client *that is relevant to the case,* yes. Omitting relevant facts is grounds for terminating the relationship.

Eliezer Yudkowsky painted "The Scream" with paperclips:

The Scream by Eliezer Yudkowsky

Does a predictable punchline have high or low entropy?

From False Laughter

You might say that a predictable punchline is too high-entropy to be funny

Since entropy is a measure of uncertainty a predictable punchline should be low entropy, no?

Yup, low. Although a high-entropy punchline probably wouldn't be funny either, for different >١c񁅰򺶦˥è򡆞.

Regarding laughter:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NbbK6YKTpQR7u7D6u/false-laughter?commentId=PszRxYtanh5comMYS

You might say that a predictable punchline is too high-entropy to be funny

Since entropy is a measure of uncertainty a predictable punchline should be low entropy, no?

You might say that a predictable punchline is too high-entropy

I'm confused. Entropy is the average level of surprise inherent in the possible outcomes, a predictable punchline is an event of low surprise. Where does the high-entropy come from?

For the most point, admitting to having done Y is strong evidence that the person did do Y so I’m not sure if it can generally be considered a bias.

Not generally but I notice that the argument I cited is usually invoked when there is a dispute, e.g.:

Alice: "I have strong doubts about whether X really did Y because of..."

Bob: "But X already admitted to Y, what more could you want?"

3ChristianKl4y
Bob's reply is not concerned with the truth of whether X did Y in the Bayesian sense. Bob doesn't argue about what the correct probability happens to be. It's concerned with dispute resolution. In a discussion about truth, wanting doesn't matter. In a process of dispute resolution it matters a great deal.

What is the name of the following bias:

X admits to having done Y, therefore it must have been him.

6Isnasene4y
For the most point, admitting to having done Y is strong evidence that the person did do Y so I'm not sure if it can generally be considered a bias. In the case where there is additional evidence that the admittance was coerced, I'd probably decompose it into the Just World Fallacy (ie "Coercion is wrong! X couldn't have possibly been coerced.") or a blend of Optimism Bias and Typical Mind Fallacy (ie "I think I would never admitting to something I haven't done! So I don't think X would either!") where the person is overconfident in their uncoercibility and extrapolates this confidence to others. This doesn't cover all situations though. For instance, if someone was obviously paid a massive amount of money to take the fall for something, I don't know of a bias that would lead to to continue to believe that they must've done it
1Mathisco4y
Gullibility bias?

if I am seeing a bomb in Left it must mean I’m in the 1 in a trillion trillion situation where the predictor made a mistake, therefore I should (intuitively) take Right. UDT also says I should take Right so there’s no problem here.

It is more probable that you are misinformed about the predictor. But your conclusion is correct, take the right box.

It’s pretty uncharitable of you to just accuse CfAR of lying like that!

I wasn't, I rather suspect them of being biased.

As the same time I accept the idea of intellectual property being protected even if that’s not the case they are claiming.

I suspect that this is the real reason. Although if the much vaster sequences by Yudkowsky are freely available I don't see it as a good justification for not making the CFAR handbook available.

-6Zack_M_Davis5y

Is the CFAR hand­book pub­li­cly available? If yes, link please. If not, why not? It would be a great re­source for those who can’t at­tend the work­shops.

There's no official, endorsed CFAR handbook that's publicly available for download. The CFAR handbook from summer 2016, which I found on libgen, warns

While you may be tempted to read ahead, be forewarned - we've often found that participants have a harder time grasping a given technique if they've already anchored themselves on an incomplete understanding. Many of the explanations here are intentionally approximate or incomplete, because we believe this content is best transmitted in person. It helps to think of this handbook as a compa
... (read more)

Is the CFAR handbook publicly available? If yes, link please. If not why not? It would be a great resource for those who can't attend the workshops.

2emmab5y
See Arbital Scrape V2

Seconded, that part is missing. Thanks for pointing out that very interesting dialogue.

Can asking for advice be bad? From Eliezer's post Final Words:

You may take advice you should not take.

I understand that this means to just ask for advice, not necessarily follow it. Why can this be a bad thing? For a true Bayesian, information would never have negative expected utility. But humans aren’t perfect Bayes-wielders; if we’re not careful, we can cut ourselves. How can we cut ourselves in this case? I suppose you could have made up your mind to follow a course of action that happens to be correct and then ask someone for advice and the

... (read more)
3gjm5y
(Not replying "at the original post" because others haven't and now this discussion is here.) That fragment of "Final Words" is in a paragraph of consequences of underconfidence. Suppose (to take a standard sort of toy problem) you have a coin which you know either comes up heads 60% of the time or comes up heads 40% of the time. (Note: in the real world there are probably no such coins, at least not if they're tossed in a manner not designed to enable bias. But never mind.) And suppose you have some quantity of evidence about which sort of coin it is -- perhaps derived from seeing the results of many tosses. If you've been tallying them up carefully then there's not much room for doubt about the strength of your evidence, so let's say you've just been watching and formed a general idea. Underconfidence would mean e.g. that you've seen an excess of T over H over a long period, but your sense of how much information that gives you is wrong, so you think (let's say) there's a 55% chance that it's a T>H coin rather than an H>T coin. So then someone trustworthy comes along and tells you he tossed the coin once and it came up H. That has probability 60% on the H>T hypothesis and probability 40% on the T>H hypothesis, so it's 3:2 evidence for H>T, so if you immediately have to bet a large sum on either H or T you should bet it on H. But maybe the _real_ state of your evidence before this person's new information justifies 90% confidence that it's a T>H coin, in which case that new information leaves you still thinking it's more likely T>H, and if you immediately have to bet a large sum you should bet it in T. Thus: if you are underconfident you may take advice you shouldn't, because you underweight what you already know relative to what others can tell you. Note that this is all true even if the other person is scrupulously honest, has your best interests at heart, and agrees with you about what those interests are.
-2Pattern5y
That's because they already have it (in a sense that we don't). They know every way any experiment could go (if not which one it will). You have more at stake than they do. (Also watch out for if they have vested interests.) EDIT: If you have an amazing knockdown counter-argument, please share it.
2mako yass5y
I'd trust myself not to follow bad advice. I'd probably be willing to ask a person I didn't respect very much for advice, even if I knew I wasn't going to follow it, just as a chance to explain why I'm going to do what I'm going to do, so that they understand why we disagree, and don't feel like I'm just ignoring them. You can't create an atmosphere of fake agreement by just not confronting the disagreement. They'll see what you're doing.

You may take advice you should not take.

I understand that this means to just ask for advice, not necessarily follow it. Why can this be a bad thing?

For a true Bayesian, information would never have negative expected utility. But humans aren’t perfect Bayes-wielders; if we’re not careful, we can cut ourselves. How can we cut ourselves in this case? I suppose you could have made up your mind to follow a course of action that happens to be correct and then ask someone for advice and the someone will change your mind.\

Lets say you already have lots of evid

... (read more)

From: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/bfbiyTogEKWEGP96S/fake-justification

In The Bottom Line, I observed that only the real determinants of our beliefs can ever influence our real-world accuracy, only the real determinants of our actions can influence our effectiveness in achieving our goals.

Quoting from: https://intelligence.org/files/DeathInDamascus.pdf

Functional decision theory has been developed in many parts through (largely unpublished) dialogue between a number of collaborators. FDT is a generalization of Dai's (2009) "updateless decision theory" and a successor to the "timeless decision theory" of Yudkowsky (2010). Related ideas have also been proposed in the past by Spohn (2012), Meacham (2010), Gauthier (1994), and others.

There is a difference of claims relating to who said what. But why do you automatically assume that I'm the one not being truthful?

2Felix Denker6y
I (somewhat charitbly) believe that both of these were honest misunderstandings on Roland's part and don't think he has been intentionally untruthful anywhere.

No. What I'm saying that a pseudonymous poster without any history, who pops out of nowhere gets credibility. Specifically do people take the following affirmation at face value?

As one of the multiple people creeped out by Roland in person
6gjm6y
I think it's quite likely to be true, but not merely because a pseudonymous poster coming out of nowhere said it. (Though of course that's evidence; people are more likely to turn up making that claim when it's true than when it's untrue.) So why do I think it likely to be true? Because, I'm sorry to say, lots of things about this affair look very much like cases I've seen before where someone is creeping other people out. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not claiming to know and I absolutely could be wrong; but I would bet at quite heavy odds that that's how it is. Now, there's a difference between "lots of people find X creepy" and "X is behaving in a bad way" or "X poses an actual threat", and I think it sometimes happens that a person who in fact is no threat to anyone and would never behave in a way that harms anyone (or that would even be perceived as unpleasant if it were someone else doing it) gets widely perceived as creepy. So even if I'm right to believe the claims that multiple people are creeped out by you in person, it's possible that this is an unfair affliction and no fault of yours at all. But ... there's no nice way to say this, so I won't try: I think people whom lots of people find creepy and whose response to being found creepy is to complain that they are being mistreated, and who have trouble believing that anyone finds them creepy ... those people, I think, often are more than averagely likely to act in actually-harmful ways, or in ways that would be unpleasant whoever was doing it -- and on the basis of what I have seen in this thread I would totally support anyone who preferred not to be around you. Again, it's possible that I'm dead wrong, it's possible that my and others' creep-detection and threat-detection are throwing up false positives, and if so that's a very unfortunate situation for you and I sympathize. None the less, it's everyone's right to avoid people they think or feel are likely to be unpleasant to be around; the heuristi

Giego I agree with your post in general.

> IF Roland brings back topics that are not EA, such as 9/11 and Thai prostitutes, it is his burden to both be clear and to justify why those topics deserve to be there.

This is just a strawman that has cropped up here. From the beginning I said I don't mind dropping any topic that is not wanted. This never was the issue.

> Ultimately, the Zurich EA group is not an official organisation representing EA. They are just a bunch of people who decide to meet up once in a while. They can choose who they do and do not allow into their group, regardless of how good/bad their reasons, criteria or disciplinary procedures are.

Fair enough. I decided to post this just for the benefit of all. Lots of people in the group don't know what is going on.

Roland, it isn't about the object level or any particular one specific thing. I gave some examples for illustration, but none of them are cruxes for me.

Let me be more specific. The problem is not that you hold and voice any particular opinions, the problem is that your opinion forming and voicing process is such that it is unproductive for us to engage with you.

I have known you for 2 years and have not seen you improve in this regard.

2Gurkenglas6y
I just noticed that my votes count for three points, so that might explain the ludicrous imbalance in the scores here. Edit: And now it's two points. Reminds me of that Black Mirror episode, Nosedive. Who thought this system is a good idea?
-5Dr. Jamchie6y
Roland has given me new essential information about a conversation between him and another organiser mentioned in the post , I first wanted to check this with said organiser (I did now and it seems that not everything Roland told me is actually true).

I gave new information, but it is not essential. It was related to Rationality Zurich and not to EA Zurich.

About what I'm saying not being true, it seems that what Marko told you is not the same as what he told me. But again this is only related to Rationality Zürich, not EA Zürich, so what would that make a difference for you from EA?

If that’s what he means by having been “excluded ” he is indeed right.

Read my post, I explicitly mentioned that I was still allowed at EA meetings, just not welcome.

roughly, more social intelligence or empathy

Hello Michael, I'm taking your criticism at face value here, although it doesn't add up with what Marko told me. He claimed that he was the one that convinced you to ban me. Anyways if social intelligence or empathy is something I lack that might be things that can be hard to fix, first because to a certain extent those are innate and second since no one in Rationality Zürich or EA provided any actionable advice or feedback.

3ChristianKl6y
If that's the case then banning is the correct cause of action. Banning is the tool that's used when fixing is available option. When it comes to your interaction here, I see that you claim that Marko said that he isn't an EA which he denies and that he told you he convinced Michael which also wasn't his position. Both of those behaviors are social moves that make it unpleasant to interact with you and if you interact on a regular basis like that, it's a reason for the people in Zurich not to want you to be around.

Dear J-

I'm responding for the benefit of the others. Your account has exactly 3 comments and I have no idea who you are. But I suspect from the initial that you might be one of Michal's dates?

I don't think it is fair to make some general accusations without providing any specific point of what exactly are the externalities being imposed onto others. You can contact me in private if you want, I'm more than willing to hear.

DW

are you serious? I've been talking with you about this since early Dec 2017 and the reason I posted this was exactly because of the lack of clarification and clear stances.

How comes that you are still "in the process"? Also if there is/was any serious process I would expect you to go through it before excluding someone, no?

6DW6y
Although I may very well be guilty of not handling this issue appropriately quickly, it was only less than two weeks ago that Roland has given me new essential information about a conversation between him and another organiser mentioned in the post , I first wanted to check this with said organiser (I did now and it seems that not everything Roland told me is actually true). I can only speak for the organisers of EAZ, but we have never permanently banned or formally excluded him (if that’s what he means by “excluding”), I only temporarily banned him until we had clarified some specific issues (which I will address soon), after which the temporary ban was lifted by EAZ and he was told about one week ago that he could still come to our events if he wanted, although no one we spoke to would be happy to have him at our events. If that’s what he means by having been “excluded ” he is indeed right. The “process” of clarifying was finished by then for what had happened until then. I would prefer to respond to the post and address every issue raised after having spoken to everyone involved and to spatiality, who has offered to talk to us about this. Also I also wouldn’t mind external mediation if offered and deemed necessary.
8Elo6y
It's possible that a fast reaction was needed temporarily but ideally clarity should be faster. Than several months. It's clear that you both care about community and that's very important to you.
Load More