All of rosiecam's Comments + Replies

How to evaluate (50%) predictions

Thanks I appreciate that :) And I apologize if my comment about probability being weird came across as patronizing, it was meant to be a reflection on the difficulty I was having putting my model into words, not a comment on your understanding

How to evaluate (50%) predictions

Ok this confirms you haven't understood what I'm claiming. If I gave a list of predictions that were my true 50% confidence interval, they would look very similar to common wisdom because I'm not a superforecaster (unless I had private information about a topic, e.g. a prediction on my net worth at the end of the year or something). If I gave my true 50% confidence interval, I would be indifferent to which way I phrased it (in the same way that if I was to predict 10 coin tosses it doesn't matter whether I predict ten heads, ten tails, ... (read more)

Also, I apologize for the statement that I "understand you perfectly" a few posts back. It was stupid and I've edited it out.

1Rafael Harth2y
I'm arguing against this claim: I'm saying that it is harder to make a list where all predictions seem obviously false and have half of them come true than it is to make a list where half of all predictions seem obviously false and half seem obviously true and have half of them come true. That's the only thing I'm claiming is true. I know you've said other things and I haven't addressed them; that's because I wanted to get consensus on this thing before talking about anything else.
How to evaluate (50%) predictions
I hereby offer you 2000$ if you provide me with a list of this kind

Can you specify what you mean by 'of this kind', i.e. what are the criteria for predictions included on the list? Do you mean a series of predictions which give a narrow range?

1Rafael Harth2y
A list of predictions that all seem extremely unlikely to come true according to common wisdom.
How to evaluate (50%) predictions

I agree there is a difference between those lists if you are evaluating everything with respect to each prediction being 'true'. My point is that sometimes a 50% prediction is impressive when it turns out to be false, because everyone else would have put a higher percentage than 50% on it being true. The first list contains only statements that are impressive if evaluated as true, the second mixes ones that would be impressive if evaluated as true with those that are impressive if evaluated as false. If Tesla's stock ends up at $513, it feel... (read more)

1Rafael Harth2y
Well, now you've changed what you're arguing for. You initially said that it doesn't matter which way predictions are stated, and then you said that both lists are the same.
How to evaluate (50%) predictions

Thanks for the response!

I don't think there is any difference in those lists! Here's why:

The impressiveness of 50% predictions can only be evaluated with respect to common wisdom. If everyone thinks P is only 10% likely, and you give it 50%, and P turns out to be true, this is impressive because you gave it a surprisingly high percentage! But also if everyone says P is 90% likely, and P turns out to be false, this is also impressive because you gave it a surprisingly low percentage!

I think what you're suggesting is that people should always... (read more)

-1Rafael Harth2y
(Edit: deleted a line based on tone. Apologies.) Everything except your last two paragraphs argues that a single 50% prediction can be flipped, which I agree with. (Again: for every n predictions, there are 2 n ways to phrase them and precisely 2 of them are maximally bold. If you have a single prediction, then 2n=2. There are only two ways, both are maximally bold and thus equally bold.) I have proposed a rule that dictates how they are phrased. If this rule is followed, it is not arbitrary how they are phrased. That's the point. Again, please consider the following list: * The price of a barrel of oil at the end of 2020 will be between $50.95 and $51.02 (50%) * Tesla's stock price at the end of the year 2020 is between 512$ and 514$ (50%) * ... You have said that there is no difference between both lists. But this is obviously untrue. I hereby offer you 2000$ if you provide me with a list of this kind and you manage to have, say, at least 10 predictions where between 40% and 60% come true. Would you offer me 2000$ if I presented you with a list of this kind: * The price of a barrel of oil at the end of 2020 will be between $50.95 and $51.02 (50%) * Tesla's stock price at the end of the year 2020 is below 512$ or above 514$ (50%) * ⋯ and between 40% and 60% come true? If so, I will PM you one immediately. I think you're stuck at the fact that a 50% prediction also predicts the negated statement with 50%, therefore you assume that the entire post must be false, and therefore you're not trying to understand the point the post is making. Right now, you're arguing for something that is obviously untrue. Everyone can make a list of the second kind, no-one can make a list of the first kind. Again, I'm so certain about this that I promise you 2000$ if you prove me wrong.
How to evaluate (50%) predictions

As has been noted, the impressiveness of the predictions has nothing to do with which way round they are stated; predicting P at 50% is exactly as impressive as predicting ¬P at 50% because they are literally the same. I think one only sounds more impressive when compared to the 'baseline' because our brains seem to be more attuned to predictions that sound surprisingly high, and we don't seem to notice ones that seem surprisingly low. I.e., we hear: 'there is a 40% chance that Joe Biden will be the democratic nominee' and som... (read more)

1Rafael Harth2y
If that were true, then the list * The price of a barrel of oil at the end of 2020 will be between $50.95 and $51.02 (50%) * Tesla's stock price at the end of the year 2020 is between 512$ and 514$ (50%) * ⋯ (more extremely narrow 50% predictions) and the list * The price of a barrel of oil at the end of 2020 will be between $50.95 and $51.02 (50%) * Tesla's stock price at the end of the year 2020 is below 512$ or above 514$ (50%) * ⋯ (more extremely narrow 50% predictions where every other one is flipped) would be equally impressive if half of them came true. Unless you think that's the case, it immediately follows that the way predictions are stated matters for impressiveness. It doesn't matter in case of a single 50% prediction, because in that case, one of the phrasings follows the rule I propose, and the other follows the inverse of the rule, which is the other way to maximize boldness. As soon as you have two 50% predictions, there are four possible phrasings and only two of them maximize boldness. (And with n predictions, 2n possible phrasings and only 2 of them maximize boldness.) The person you're referring to left an addendum in a second comment (as a reply to the first) acknowledging that phrasing matters for evaluation.
What is your Personal Knowledge Management system?

I'm constantly experimenting with it! The downside of it being so flexible is that it can take a while to figure out the best system.

At the moment, everything goes into one database called 'Notes'. I enabled the 'Created at' and 'Edited at' properties. I also have multi-select properties for themes (e.g. rationality, productivity, economics, etc) and for type (e.g. random thought, blog idea, resource, article, tool, etc). I also have a checkbox property called 'processed' - and I filter the view of the table to... (read more)

What is your Personal Knowledge Management system?

Principles:

  1. Capture everything: Do not assume your brain will remember anything. Write it down ASAP. Use whatever will let you capture it quickest, whether that's pen and paper or a digital solution.
  2. Review and process: Make sure you actually look at the things you wrote down regularly and organize it. If it was an idea you need to act on (e.g. a topic for a blog post, or a reminder to look up a particular concept), add it to your task manager. If it was a thought for reference, add it to your 'second brain'/note-taking/archive system, and add
... (read more)
1leetheguy3y
For recurring tasks, I use checkvist [https://checkvist.com/]. You can embed your lists into Notion pages.
3Peter Kim3y
Do you mind sharing your Notion setup? I've been thinking about setting up a personal wiki with it, but I'm unsure of how to best structure it overall. I've just started a bare-bones system for planning and task management, but I'm still getting the hang of using Notion effectively.
How dangerous is it to ride a bicycle without a helmet?

There seems to be some evidence that a norm of helmet-wearing discourages people from cycling. When people don't wear helmets, they are taking on some personal risk, but by challenging the norm it could mean that more people take up cycling. This is likely to make cycling safer (fewer cars on the roads, drivers are more used to cyclists, safety in numbers at intersections etc), and so the need to wear a helmet is reduced.

I'd prefer to live in a world where more people cycle and helmets aren't (as) needed (like in European cities such as Berlin and Amsterdam), so I tend to feel grateful towards people who don't wear helmets.

The RAIN Framework for Informational Effectiveness

This is great, I can see it being really helpful for me to consciously think about which of these I'm optimizing for (or am willing to sacrifice) when writing. I got confused by the introduction of the term 'density' in the section on trade-offs, as this isn't represented in the RAIN framework. Is density just a sub-consideration of accessibility or are you considering it in its own right?

3ozziegooen3y
Thanks, and good to hear! Density applies only to some situations; it just depends on how you look at things. It felt quite different from the other attributes. For instance, you could rate a document "per information content" according to the RAIN framework, in which you would essentially decouple it from density. Or you could rate it per "entire document", in which case the density would matter.
In favor of tabooing the word “values” and using only “priorities” instead

FWIW, there seems to be a trend in my corner of the AI safety community (CHAI) to move away from the term 'values' and towards the term 'preferences', I think for similar reasons.