I only just got the email about this so I have not yet spent much time evaluating this, but how much work on your end would it be to become a GDR (AU tax efficient charity)? Can you accept donations of stocks. Is anyone familiar with the tax implications of donating to a US charity as a dual tax resident of the US and Australia?
I’m also interested in naming something ‘Lady Eriape Was Innocent’ if I end up deciding to donate but do not want to let that influence my actual donation decision.
Galileo invented the telescope
https://explainingscience.org/2018/03/13/galileo-and-the-telescope/ a bit of a simplification, but not seriously off.
So, there is a legitimate complaint here. It’s true that sailors in the ancient world had a legitimate reason to want a word in their language whose extension was
{salmon, guppies, sharks, dolphins, ...}. (And modern scholars writing a translation for present-day English speakers might even translate that word as fish, because most members of that category are what we would call fish.) It indeed would not necessarily be helping the sailors to tell them that they need to exclude dolphins from the extension of that word, and instead include dolphins in the extension of their word for{monkeys, squirrels, horses ...}. Likewise, most modern biologists have little use for a word that groups dolphins and guppies together.
Ok, but salmon and guppies are more closely related to dolphins than sharks. Like I get where you are going with this, but “fish” is barely a natural category and it isn’t obviously more of one than all descendants of the last common ancestor of the actinopterygians. Even if you limit it to marine descendants it still lets you predict bone vs cartilaginous skeletal system.
I might get time to right more detail in the future but wanted to say I found this helpful.
Given that the original problem involves discrete units (one person once a day) is it correct to treat infinity as being a cluster point/limit point of the function
To be a bit more explicit. I have some ideas of what it would look like to try to develop this meta-field or at least sub-elements of it, seperate from general rationality and am trying to get a feel for if they are worth pursuing personally. Or better yet, handing over to someone who doesn’t feel they have any currently tractable ideas, but is better at getting things done.
This seems wrong but at least resembles a testable prediction.
That we have to get a bunch of key stuff right on the first try is where most of the lethality really and ultimately comes from; likewise the fact that no authority is here to tell us a list of what exactly is ‘key’ and will kill us if we get it wrong. (One remarks that most people are so absolutely and flatly unprepared by their ‘scientific’ educations to challenge pre-paradigmatic puzzles with no scholarly authoritative supervision, that they do not even realize how much harder that is, or how incredibly lethal it is to demand getting that right on the first critical try.)
Is anyone making a concerted effort to derive generalisable principles of how to get things right on the first try and/or work in the pre-paradigmatic mode? It seems like if we knew how to do that in general it would be a great boost to AI Safety research.
A bit tangential to the main point, but Woodridge is a misleading tertiary source and while some sphex species display looping behavior under some circumstances it is not as universal or irrational as the Hofstader makes it sound.
As far as I know this is the origin of the term, but it is worth noting that Woodridge is a misleading tertiary source and actual sphex are not that spexish.
As a heads up it looks like you need to be logged in to use the contact-newsroom page.
One benefit is that it is a good chance for training. We have a complicated real world question were the answer and even the best way of approaching the answer are currently unknown, but we will know the answer soon. Making predictions and recording the reasoning will allow for retrospectives.
it should be hard or impossible for participants to look up the answers during the study
I am unclear how you are going to enforce this in practice given that the study will be online and that you’re expecting people to spend at least 30 minutes on conversation, which implies a large enough reward that it is worth hunting down answers that can’t be found on the front page of Google. The only thing that comes to my mind is asking them to make predictions about the future. Related what will your policy be on participants looking up and/or sharing references relevant to steps in their reasoning? E.g. if one of the questions is about Trump being reelected will participants be allowed to visit 538 during step 1 and/or link their partner to it in step 4?
I didn’t have enough time to properly evaluate the statistics portion, but at first glance it looks ok. Nothing seems wrong with the significance tests beyond them being significance tests. IIRC BEST addresses my main issues with them, particularly being able to indicated the absence of an effect in a way that isn’t the case for mere non-significance, but I haven’t used it in forever and don’t have time to brush up on it at the moment.
Its one of the things Val taught. I honestly don’t remember much of the details, but “deliberate practice but where you think hard about not Goodhart-ing and practicing the wrong thing”? actually sounds about right.
It was taught at CfAR during the period I think James attended.
Have you been using turbocharging training with him?
A bit off the main topic, but what was the Ketosylent recipe?
Small but important change State every belief as a probability that is less than 100% → State every belief as a probability that is less than 100% and greater than 0.
I enjoyed this post. Citations would have been strongly appreciated but I think posting this without citations > not posting, so I upvoted anyway. In the spirt of crowdsourced fact checking I semi-randomly picked the Darwin quote and hox genes to briefly research. The Darwin quote is real, and its use in other sources suggests that you used the standard interpretation rather than e.x. deliberately taking it out of context. Your explanation of hox genes is really not how I would have done it, but wikipedia agrees that “The sequence and function of Hox genes is highly conserved” which is what matters for your thesis. In restrospect choosing a highly disclaimed section for fact checking was a bad idea, but in my defense hox genes sounded intersting and had an easy to search keyword.
The run up to this apocalypse seem to have included at least a few generalizable events:
At this point I stopped and mentally assigned a 90% probability that this was about to become singularity thing. I applaud myself.
I am trying to see if there has been any followup work on conservative concept boundaries since EY posted about it. I didn’t find anything with a web search, but the people of lesswrong seem likely to know if there is anything I missed under different names, off of the main internet ect