Mathematician, alignment researcher, doctor. Reach out to me on Discord and tell me you found my profile on LW if you've got something interesting to say; you have my explicit permission to try to guess my Discord handle if so. You can't find my old abandoned-for-being-mildly-infohazardously-named LW account but it's from 2011 and has 280 karma.
A Lorxus Favor is worth (approximately) one labor-day's worth of above-replacement-value specialty labor, given and received in good faith, and used for a goal approximately orthogonal to one's desires, and I like LessWrong because people here will understand me if I say as much.
Apart from that, and the fact that I am under no NDAs, including NDAs whose existence I would have to keep secret or lie about, you'll have to find the rest out yourself.
Reporting back in after having laid hands on some bupropion. I'm two days in and:
More to come, maybe.
I am going to signpost the fact that in the absence of a scheduled event I would totally just jump in and pick some stuff for us to read and discuss tomorrow and post an event but I don't have a list of everything you've read so far.
Got it. See you Tuesday!
There is in fact a next event, right? I assume yes because event-chain description, but that still leaves me without knowledge of the reading.
Thank you for writing this! A lot of it felt "obviously true" to me in a way that I find pleasant and at this point consider a mark of quality explication of everyday topics which are easy to misconstrue badly. There were maybe half a dozen points where I went "yup that absolutely tracks with my own experience and what I know of others' ".
Most notably, the way in which some behaviors/frames/flinches propagate themselves by bending people along their creases; I saw the gears-level punchline for "why do people develop and dissimulate like this" coming a couple of sections in; and there were at least a few points where on having read them, if somehow that article were the course of a conversation between us, I'd have piped up with some probably-nontrivial extension. (I'll bring a couple of those up below.)
I'm also delighted to see that my question about your cherry-blossom hoodie made it in here. (Maybe I'll talk to you about what my favorite hoodie means to me sometime.)
There were at least three importantly adjacent things that I think you missed here, likely because of the tenor of your life experiences:
First off, I think a major missing piece was a treatment of what Truth Or Dare looks like if the ceiling looks high, the floor looks to be far enough down that it'd maybe break your ankle to fall into it, and the median is unbound. Maybe that's just what it looks like, when you're long out of a Dark World and you're headtilting and squinting curiously-but-dubiously at Maybe A Light World? Something about that specific case where the floor is very low but the ceiling is promisingly high seems importantly noncentral to me.
Another notably missing piece: a straightforward "hold concept A up to the light next to concept B and see what happens", where "concept A" is [gestures vaguely to all of the ~20k words above] and "concept B" is something like "predictive mental modeling and felt-senses that arise from poking that model". Roughly: "the morning after the Truth or Dare, how do(es your felt-predictive-model expect that) the information and memories from it get used?" The answer to that is strongly dependent on the symmetry-breaking process you spotlight and also on how much ambient Shit is in the environment, and is probably part of how the Dark World cascades get started in Shit-naive environments. That dynamic seems like an important part of the equilibrium-to-be-solved-for here!
Yet another is something about banter and countersignaling?
When you have ten thousand points in the bank, you can sort of tell yourself that you’re wealthy by gambling with fifty of them without a lot of anxiety or caution.
I claim this rhymes-boringly-well with "When you have ten thousand points of credit in the Bank Of Someone Else, you can point out that you're wealthy by setting fifty of them on fire without a lot of anxiety or caution." (My mental image is that the Credit Points are sparkly when set on fire or maybe just perfumed, like incense.) Something about this also rhymes (if perhaps less well) with the (in)famously showy destruction of wealth at potlatches - "look how much wealth I have, that I can trivially afford to give a lot of it away, or even destroy it altogether!". Actually, thinking about it more, it feels like it has to do with ~everything to do with - plenty/(over?)abundance, construed broadly? Material plenty leading to psychological/social plenty and it all loops back on itself as long as it can, and then you have Too Much Plenty but that's alright because you can give it away or even set it on fire, just to prove a valuable point. Seems kinda fragile, though, all that relying on ambient plenty! (...then again, so few valuable things aren't fragile thus.)
As a final larger speculation, I wonder to what extent the aphorism that "if a community isn't growing, it's dying" comes down to symmetry-breaking mechanisms like the one(s) you detailed here. People leave a Light World community at some constant rate-per-person, while the larger environment the community sits in determines a lot about what happens with new people entering: both whether people trust this supposed Light World community (which might, from outside view, be a scam at best) and also whether the people who feel up to putting a foot in will then immediately step in something (and how everyone then responds).
Fabricate suggests otherwise. What if you just feel like maxing out mundane economicmagic of which Prestidigitation is the example par excellence?
I read this pretty soon after you posted it and have been thinking about it a lot about it in snatches ever since. I think it's pointing at something important. Here's a few things adjacent to it, or important components of it, or something like that. I think you will find them useful, @johnswentworth .
A desire for personal empowerment/enrichment/?command?; a syntonia related to resourcefulness and curiosity and clean planning/execution/development loops?
Anyway: I like the vibe. It's something that I feel pretty strongly and to some extent I think it's what a lot of my hobbies are pointed at pursuing, in a variety of ways. Wizard Power seems like an important spiritual vitamin, and both one that it can be hard and finnicky to get and also not one it seems like everyone really needs. I need it, and it sounds like you need it.
I endorse cooking being one of a handful of workable sources of standout-seeming magic wizard power in this way. I think it's worthwhile to try and I am happy to help you and maybe other people who I know and who ask me to, to do some interesting/fun cooking projects. At some points in my life, getting to play around experimenting with foods has been my main source of that felt sense of soul-nourishment, or at least a pica-replacement for it. Cloning recipes is one option; for a cantrip, if you don't already tinker with technically-prepared food (canned soups, say, or ramen), you can start. I could talk about cooking projects I've done in the past, if that helped?
I also really like the idea of "let's do a thing-you-can-in-fact-just-do and become more capable/powerful/knowledgeable, in a fairly fun and lighthearted way, rather than just while away this period of time in dissipated enjoyment". If you end up seriously doing something of this type during the Lighthaven Festival Season or something, I will very likely participate seriously. Sewing would be a good one - I don't really know how and I value tailoring and the fabric arts all the more for it; loved ones like @WhatsTrueKittycat and both grandmothers have won my heart with the Wizard Power of their enduring fiber arts and ongoing repairs thereto. I'll keep an eye out for if you end up doing that.
Say more about "ray-tracing"? What does that look like? And do you have a bullshit-but-useful PCA-flavored breakdown of those few dimensions of variation?
What are "latential" string diagrams?
Just the word I use to describe "thing that has something to do with (natural) latents". More specifically for this case: a string diagram over a Markov category equipped with the extra stuff, structure, and properties that a Markov category needs to have in order to faithfully depict everything we care about when we want to write down statements or proofs about Bayes nets which might transform in some known restricted ways.
What does it it mean that you can't derive them all from a "fixed" set? Do you imagine some strong claim e.g. that the set of rewriting rules being undecidable, or something else?
Something else. I'm saying that:
...so maybe some approach where you start by listing off all the identities you want to have hold and then derive the full ruleset from those would work at least partially? I guess I'm not totally clear what you mean by "categorical axioms" here - there's a fair amount that goes into a category; you're setting down all the rules for a tiny toy mathematical universe and are relatively unconstrained in how you do so, apart from your desired semantics. I'm also not totally confident that I've answered your question.
Okay, so this is not what you care about? Maybe you are saying the following: Given two diagrams X,Y, we want to ask whether any distribution compatible with X is compatible with Y. We don't ask whether the converse also holds. This is a certain asymmetric relation, rather than an equivalence.
Yes. Well... almost. Classically you'd care a lot more about the MEC, but I've gathered that that's not actually true for latential Bayes nets. For those, we have some starting joint distribution J, which we care about a lot, and some diagram D_J which it factors over; alternatively, we have some starting set of conditionality requirements J, and some diagram D_J from among those that realize J. (The two cases are the same apart from the map that gives you actual numerical valuations for the states and transitions.)
We do indeed care about the asymmetric relation of "is every distribution compatible with X also compatible with Y", but we care about it because we started with some X_J and transformed it such that at every stage, the resulting diagram was still compatible with J.
To redteam, and in brief - what's the tale of why this won't have lead to a few very coordinated, very internally peaceful, mostly epistemically clean factions, each of which is kind of an echo chamber and almost all of which are wrong about something (or even just importantly mutually disagree on frames) in some crucial way, and which are at each other's throats?