+1 for just throwing your notes up on a website. For example, mine are at https://www.hgreer.com/Reports/ although there is currently a bit of a gap for the last few months as I’ve been working more on synthesizing existing work into a CVPR submission than on exploreing new directions.
The above is a terrible post-hoc justification and I need to get back to note taking.
Hastings
Karma: 797
Organizations and communities can also face hostile telepaths. My pet theory that sort of crystalized while reading this is that p-hacking is academia’s response to a hostile telepath that banned publication of negative results.
This of course sucks for non traditional researchers and especially journalists who don’t even subconsciously know that p=0.05002 r=1e-7 “breakthrough in finding relationship between milk consumption and toenail fungus” is code for “We have conclusively found no effect and want to broadcast to the community that there is no effect here; yet we cannot ever consciously acknowledging that we found nothing because our mortgages depend on fooling a hostile telepath into believing this is something”
Personally I am quite pleased with the field of parapsychology. For example, they took a human intuition and experience (“Wow, last night when I went to sleep I floated out of my body. That was real!”) and operationalized it into a testable hypothesis (“When a subject capable of out of body experiences floats out of their body, they will be able to read random numbers written on a card otherwise hidden to them.”) They went and actually performed this experiment, with a decent deal of rigor, writing the results down accurately, and got an impossible result- one subject could read the card. (Tart, 1968.) A great deal of effort quickly went in to further exploration (including military attention with the men who stare at goats etc) and it turned out that the experiment didn’t replicate, even though everyone involved seemed to genuinely expect it to. In the end, no, you can’t use an out of body experience to remotely view, but I’m really glad someone did the obvious experiments instead of armchair philosophizing.
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799368/m2/1/high_res_d/vol17-no2-73.pdf is a great read from someone who obviously believes in the metaphysical, and then does a great job designing and running experiments and accurately reporting their observations, and so it’s really only a small ding against them that the author draws the wrong larger conclusions in the end.
Show me a field where replication crises tear through, exposing fraud and rot and an emperor that never had any clothes, a field where replications fail so badly that they result in firings and polemics in the New York Times and destroyed careers- and then I will show you a field that is a little confused but has the spirit and will get there sooner or later.
What you really need to look out for are fields that could never, on a conceptual level, have a devastating replication crisis. Lesswrong sometimes strays a little close to this camp.
Since you’re already in it: do you happen to know if the popular system of epicycles accurately represented the (relative, per body) distance of each planet from earth over time, or just the angle? I’ve been curious about this for a while but haven’t had time to dig in. They’d at minimum have to get it right for the moon and sun for predicting eclipse type.
After reading this, I prompted Claude with
Please write a parody of chapter 3 of the 1926 winnie the pooh, where instead of winnie and piglet searching for a woozle, some bloggers are looking for bloggers similar to matt levine, and not realizing that they are the bloggers who are similar to matt levine. This will be a humorous reply to the attached post.
Arxiv is basically one huge, glacially slow internet comment section, where you reply to an article by citing it. It’s more interactive than it looks- most early career researchers are set up to get a ping whenever they are cited.
Keep in mind that representative democracy as practiced in the US is doing as well as it is while holding up to hundreds of millions of dollars of destructive pessimization effort- any alternative system is going to be hit with similar efforts. Just off the top of my head: we are being hit with about $50 dollars per capita of spending this fall, and that’s plenty to brain-melt a meaningful fraction of the population. Each member of a 500 member sortition body chosing a president, if their identity is leaked, is going to be immediately hit with OOM 30 million dollars of attempts to change their mind. This is a different environment than a calm deliberation and consideration of the issues as examined by the linked studies.
(figures computed by dividing 2024 election spending by targeted population)
What are the odds that Polymarket resolves “Trump yes” and Harris takes office in 2025? If these mystery traders expect to profit from hidden information, the hidden information could be about an anticipated failure of UMA instead of about the election itself.
Are there any mainstream programming languages that make it ergonomic to write high level numerical code that doesn’t allocate once the serious calculation starts? So far for this task C is by far the best option but it’s very manual, and Julia tries and does pretty well but you have to constantly make sure that the compiler successfully optimized away the allocations that you think it optimized away. (Obviously Fortran is also very good for this, but ugh)
To say that most academic research is anything, you’re going to have to pick a measure over research. Uniform measure is not going to be exciting – you’re going to get almost entirely undergraduate assignments and Third World paper mills. If your weighted sampler is “papers linked in articles about how academia is woke” you’re going to find a high %fake. If your weighed measure is “papers read during work hours by employees at F500 companies” you’ll find a lower, nonzero %fake.
Handwringing over public, vitriolic retractions spats is going to fuck your epistemology via sampling bias. There is no replication crisis in underwater basket weaving
Yeah, I definitely oversimplified somewhere. I’m definitely tripped up by “this statement is false” or statements that don’t terminate. Worse, thinking in that direction, I appear to have claimed that the utterance “What color is your t-shirt” is associated with a probability of being true.
Evaluating the truth of statements in a world of ambiguous language.
I think that your a-before-e example is confusing your intuition- a typical watermark that occurs 10% of the time isn’t going to be semantic, it’s more like “this n-gram hashed with my nonce == 0 mod 10”
I’m at this point pretty confident that under the Copenhagen interpretation, whenever an intergalactic photon hits earth, the wave-function collapse takes place on a semi-spherical wave-front many millions of lightyears in diameter. I’m still trying to wrap my head around what the interpretation of this event is in many-worlds. I know that it causes earth to pick which world it is in out of the possible worlds that split off when the photon was created, but I’m not sure if there is any event on the whole spherical wavefront.
It’s not a pure hypothetical- we are likely to see gravitational lens interferometry in our lifetime (if someone hasn’t achieved it yet outside of my attempt at literature review) which will either confirm that these considerations are real, or produce a shock result that they aren’t.
One feature of every lesswrong Petrov day ritual is the understanding that the people on the other side of the button have basically similar goals and reasoning processes, especially when aggregated into a group. I wonder if the mods at /r/sneerclub would be interested in a Petrov day collaboration in the future.
Does it ever fail to complete a proof, and honestly announce failure? A single time I have gotten claude to successfully disprove a statement that I asked it to prove, after trying to find a proof and instead finding a disproof, but I’ve never had it try for a while and then announce that it has not made progress either way.
The funniest possible outcome is that no one opts in and so the world is saved but the blog post is ruined.
I would hate to remove the possibility of a funny outcome. No opt in!
I greatly enjoyed this book back in the day, but the whole scenario was wild enough to summon the moral immune system. Past a certain point, for me it’s a safe default to put up mental barriers and actively try not to learn moral lessons from horror fiction. Worm, Gideon the 9th, anything by Stephen King- great, but I don’t quite expect to learn great lessons.
While rejecting them as sources of wisdom now, I can remember these books and return to them if I suddenly need to make moral choices in a world where people can grow wiser by being tortured for months, or stronger by
killing and then mentally fusing with your childhood friend. or achieve coordination by mind controlling your entire community and spending their lives like pawns
I have observed a transition. 12 years ago, the left-right split was based on many loosely correlated factors and strategic/inertial effects, creating bizarre situations like near perfect correlation between opinions on Gay Marriage and privatization of social security. I think at that time you could reason much better if you could recognize that the separation between left and right was not natural. I at least have a ton of cached arguments from this era because it became such a familiar dynamic.
Nowadays, I don’t think this old schema really applies, especially among the actual elected officers and party leadership. The effective left right split is mono-factor: you are right exactly in proportion to your personal loyalty to one Donald J. Trump, resulting in bizarre situations like Dick Cheney being classified as “Left.”