VincentYu

Karma: 2,203

VincentYu May 17, 2015, 4:15 AM
0 points
in reply to: torekp’s comment on: On desiring subjective states (post 3 of 3)
I see. In GAZP vs. GLUT, Eliezer argues that the only way to feasibly create a perfect imitation of a specific human brain is to do computations that correspond in some way to the functional roles behind mental states, which will produce identical conscious experiences according to functionalism.

VincentYu May 16, 2015, 9:07 AM
2 points
in reply to: torekp’s comment on: On desiring subjective states (post 3 of 3)

For uploading, that means whole brain emulation. In my underinformed opinion, whole brain emulation is not the Way to AGI if you just want AGI. At some point, then, AGI will be available while WBE systems will be way behind; and so, uploaders will at least temporarily face a deeply serious choice on this issue.

Are you suggesting that mind uploading to a non-WBE platform will be available before WBE? I don’t think this is a common belief; uploading almost exclusively refers to WBE. See, for instance, Sandberg and Bostrom (2008), who don’t distinguish between WBE and uploading:

Whole brain emulation, often informally called “uploading” or “downloading”, has been the subject of much science fiction and also some preliminary studies.

I think it is indeed a common belief that AGI may come before WBE, but as far as I know, it is not commonly believed that AGI will provide an alternative route to WBE, because human minds will likely not be feasibly translatable to the AGI architectures that we come up with.

VincentYu May 16, 2015, 8:46 AM
3 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: LessWrong Help Desk—free paper downloads and more (2014)
The relevant paragraph is in Section 2.2.5:

OCD is ranked by the WHO in the top ten of the most disabling illnesses by lost income and decreased quality of life (Bobes et al., 2001). The severity of OCD differs markedly from one person to another. While some people may be able to hide their OCD from their own family, the disorder may have a major negative impact on social relationships leading to frequent family and marital discord or dissatisfaction, separation or divorce (Koran, 2000). It also interferes with leisure activities (Antony et al., 1998) and with a person’s ability to study or work, leading to diminished educational and/or occupational attainment and unemployment (Koran, 2000; Leon et al., 1995). The social cost (that is the person’s inability to fully function in society) has been estimated as US$5.9 billion in 1990, or 70.4% of the total economic cost of OCD (DuPont et al., 1995).

Following the Bobes et al. citation yields:

Obsessive-compulsive disorder is the fourth most common psychiatric disorder, occurring in 2–3% of the U.S. population [14]. Furthermore, OCD is a chronic and disabling illness that impacts negatively on the academic, occupational, social, and family function of patients [11, 12, 17]. This impact carries over onto their families, friends, and society [12]. Indeed, OCD ranks tenth in the World Bank’s and WHO’s ten leading causes of disability and, in the case of women aged 15–44 years, OCD occupies the fifth position [22]. In spite of this situation, to our knowledge data on quality of life and disability has scarcely been reported in OCD patients.

Reference 22 is to “WHO Fact Sheet no. 217”, which no longer exists. Luckily, the Wayback Machine has a copy. The relevant point:

It is also of great significance that 5 of the 10 leading causes of disability worldwide (major depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, alcohol use, obsessive compulsive disorders) are mental problems. They are as relevant in developing countries as they are in industrialised societies

Unfortunately, there is no citation and it does not precisely match Bobes et al’s claims. Neither Bobes et al. nor the WHO fact sheet refers to lost income, so the reference to that in the original claim is wholly unsubstantiated by these citations.

VincentYu May 16, 2015, 7:45 AM
3 points
in reply to: gwern’s comment on: LessWrong Help Desk—free paper downloads and more (2014)
The last one.

I don’t think I can get the two dissertations. I’ll put in ILL requests for the other papers over the next week.

VincentYu May 14, 2015, 6:56 AM
0 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: LessWrong help desk—free paper downloads and more
Chapter 3 is available from the publisher as a sample.

(BTW, this is an old help desk thread; the newest one is here.)

VincentYu Apr 7, 2015, 9:50 AM
0 points
in reply to: rseiter’s comment on: Get genotyped for free ( If your IQ is high enough)

Is there any chance your sequencing had greater than 4x coverage?

I don’t know. How do I find out?

VincentYu Apr 7, 2015, 9:41 AM
0 points
on: Is there a LessWrong Index?
There is the References & Resources for LessWrong (last updated in 2011), which has a good selection of older posts and other resources by subject.

VincentYu Apr 4, 2015, 5:58 AM
3 points
in reply to: rseiter’s comment on: Get genotyped for free ( If your IQ is high enough)
Are you sure you’ve downloaded your entire genome file? My uncompressed file is about 500 MB, and I got about 26000 annotations on Promethease. It seems like your file might have gotten truncated during the download.

Short step-by-step guide for those who want to get their genome annotated by Promethease:
1. Use the ‘Download All Files’ link on the SpiderOak page to download your genome file.*
2. Unzip then gunzip to get the raw text file genome.txt.
3. Open the file in a text editor. Remove all the commented lines at beginning of the file except the last one (i.e., keep the line starting with # rsid; Promethease chokes if you don’t) and save. This is required to get Promethease to recognize the file.
4. (optional) Compress the edited file with zip, gzip, or bzip2 to save upload time and bandwidth.
5. Upload to Promethease and follow the directions there.
* I advise against downloading the genome.txt.gz file directly because for some reason SpiderOak has Content-encoding: gzip in their HTTP response header, which means that browsers will transparently uncompress that file. This makes me uneasy because there is no checksum provided for the (somewhat large) plain text file, so we have little protection against corruption and truncation. In contrast, by using ‘Download All Files’ to download everything in a zip, the data’s integrity will be automatically verified against CRC-32 checksums when we unzip and gunzip locally.

VincentYu Apr 3, 2015, 2:40 AM
3 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: LessWrong Help Desk—free paper downloads and more (2014)
Here.

VincentYu Mar 21, 2015, 2:17 PM
3 points
in reply to: DataPacRat’s comment on: Open thread, Mar. 16 - Mar. 22, 2015
Not directly answering your conundrum on wrist computers, but—I go trail running frequently (in Hong Kong), so I’ve thought a bit about wearable devices and safety. Here are some of my solutions and thoughts:
- I use a forearm armband (example) to hold my phone in a position that allows me to use and see the touchscreen while running. I find this incredibly useful for checking a GPS map on the run while keeping both hands free for falls. I worry that the current generation of watches are nowhere near as capable as my phone.
- I rely a lot on Strava’s online route creation tool and phone app for navigation.
- Digital personal locator beacons on the 406 MHz channel (example) are the current gold standard for distress signals.
- Sharing your location through your phone (e.g., on Google+) can give some peace of mind to your family and friends.
- An inactivity detector based on a phone’s accelerometer might be a useful dead man switch for sending a distress SMS/email in the event of an accident that renders you incompetent. I haven’t gotten around to setting this up on my phone, but here’s an (untested) example of an app that might work.
- In case of emergency, it might be useful to have a GPS app on your phone that can display your grid reference so that you can tell rescuers where to find you.

VincentYu Feb 3, 2015, 3:53 AM
10 points
in reply to: DanArmak’s comment on: Stupid Questions February 2015
I second gjm’s suggestion to talk to a healthcare professional.

Every year, the CDC updates and publishes their recommended immunization schedule for adults (patient version), which doesn’t assume childhood vaccination. Below, I’ve summarized the parts that are most relevant to you.

Vaccines recommended for adults aged 30 years:
- Influenza (annually)
- Tdap (with Td booster every 10 years)
- Varicella (2 doses)
- MMR
Additional vaccines recommended for adults aged 30 years with diabetes:
- Zoster
- PPSV23
- Hepatitis B (3 doses)
Note that if you have a concurrent immunocompromising condition (e.g., lymphoma), then live vaccines should generally be avoided. This includes the varicella, MMR, and zoster vaccines. Again, your healthcare provider can tell you more.

VincentYu Jan 26, 2015, 1:22 AM
0 points
in reply to: Username’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 19 - Jan. 25, 2015
I recommend reading section 19 (on the management of social anxiety disorder) in the recent treatment guidelines from the British Association for Psychopharmacology (pp. 17–19). A sample:

19.1. Recognition and diagnosis

Social anxiety disorder is often not recognised in primary medical care (Weiller et al., 1996) but detection can be enhanced through the use of screening questionnaires in psychologically distressed primary care patients (Donker et al., 2010; Terluin et al., 2009). Social anxiety disorder is often misconstrued as mere ‘shyness’ but can be distinguished from shyness by the higher levels of personal distress, more severe symptoms and greater impairment (Burstein et al., 2011; Heiser et al., 2009). The generalised sub-type (where anxiety is associated with many situations) is associated with greater disability and higher comorbidity, but patients with the non-generalised subtype (where anxiety is focused on a limited number of situations) can be substantially impaired (Aderka et al., 2012; Wong et al., 2012). Social anxiety disorder is hard to distinguish from avoidant personality disorder, which may represent a more severe form of the same condition (Reich, 2009). Patients with social anxiety disorder often present with symptoms arising from comorbid conditions (especially depression), rather than with anxiety symptoms and avoidance of social and performance situations (Stein et al., 1999). There are strong, and possibly two-way, associations between social anxiety disorder and dependence on alcohol and cannabis (Buckner et al., 2008; Robinson et al., 2011).

19.2. Acute treatment

The findings of meta-analyses and randomised placebocontrolled treatment studies indicate that a range of approaches are efficacious in acute treatment (Blanco et al., 2013). CBT [cognitive behavioral therapy] is efficacious in adults (Hofmann and Smits, 2008) and children (James et al., 2005): cognitive therapy appears superior to exposure therapy (Ougrin, 2011), but the evidence for the efficacy of social skills training is less strong (Ponniah and Hollon, 2008). Antidepressant drugs with proven efficacy include most SSRIs (escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, sertraline), the SNRI venlafaxine, the MAOI phenelzine, and the RIMA moclobemide.

[...]

19.4. Comparative efficacy of pharmacological, psychological and combination treatments

Pharmacological and psychological treatments, when delivered singly, have broadly similar efficacy in acute treatment (Canton et al., 2012). However, acute treatment with cognitive therapy (group or individual) is associated with a reduced risk of symptomatic relapse at follow-up (Canton et al., 2012). It is unlikely that the combination of pharmacological with psychological treatments is associated with greater overall efficacy than with either treatment, when given alone, as only one in four studies of the relative efficacy of combination treatment found evidence for superior efficacy (Blanco et al., 2010). The findings of small randomised placebo-controlled studies suggest that the efficacy of psychological treatment may be enhanced through prior administration of d-cycloserine (Guastella et al., 2008; Hofmann et al., 2006) or cannabidiol (Bergamaschi et al., 2011).

From a patient perspective, the guidelines suggest that each of the following four approaches should be similarly effective for the treatment of social anxiety as long as the care provider is adequately trained and up-to-date with current best practice:
- Pharmacotherapy
  - given by a psychiatrist.
  - given by a primary care physician.
- Psychotherapy
  - with a therapist.
  - in a group setting.

VincentYu Jan 20, 2015, 3:58 AM
8 points
in reply to: RowanE’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 19 - Jan. 25, 2015
where when you’re not on caffeine you’re below baseline and caffeine just brings you back to normal

This is a hypothesized explanation for the acute performance-enhancing effects of caffeine that fits well with the Algernon argument, but it is not a conclusive result of the literature. For instance, the following recent review disputes that.

Einöther SJL, Giesbrecht T (2013). Caffeine as an attention enhancer: reviewing existing assumptions. Psychopharmacology, 225:251–74.

Abstract (emphasis mine):

Rationale: Despite the large number of studies on the behavioural effects of caffeine, an unequivocal conclusion had not been reached. In this review, we seek to disentangle a number of questions.

Objective: Whereas there is a general consensus that caffeine can improve performance on simple tasks, it is not clear whether complex tasks are also affected, or if caffeine affects performance of the three attention networks (alerting, orienting and executive control). Other questions being raised in this review are whether effects are more pronounced for higher levels of caffeine, are influenced by habitual caffeine use and whether there [sic] effects are due to withdrawal reversal.

Method: Literature review of double-blind placebo controlled studies that assessed acute effects of caffeine on attention tasks in healthy adult volunteers.

Results: Caffeine improves performance on simple and complex attention tasks, and affects the alerting, and executive control networks. Furthermore, there is inconclusive evidence on dose-related performance effects of caffeine, or the influence of habitual caffeine consumption on the performance effects of caffeine. Finally, caffeine’s effects cannot be attributed to withdrawal reversal.

Conclusions: Evidence shows that caffeine has clear beneficial effects on attention, and that the effects are even more widespread than previously assumed.

The authors’ conclusions:
- Caffeine improves performance on both simple and complex attention tasks.
- Caffeine improves alerting, executive control and potentially also orienting.
- There is inconclusive evidence on dose-related performance effects of caffeine.
- There is inconclusive evidence on the influence of habitual caffeine consumption on the performance effects of caffeine.
- Caffeine’s effects cannot be attributed to withdrawal reversal.
Note the following conflict of interest:

The authors are employees of Unilever, which markets tea and tea-based beverages.

VincentYu Jan 19, 2015, 12:11 PM
8 points
in reply to: ilzolende’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 19 - Jan. 25, 2015

Requiring everyone to register a public key

This is already the case in Estonia, where every citizen over the age of 14 has a government-issued ID card containing two X.509 RSA key pairs. TLS client authentication is widely deployed for Estonian web services such as internet banking.

(Due to ideological differences regarding the centralization of trust, I think it’s unlikely that governments will adopt OpenPGP over X.509.)

VincentYu Jan 14, 2015, 3:39 AM
8 points
in reply to: Mark_Friedenbach’s comment on: How Islamic terrorists reduced terrorism in the US
The crappy resolution is due to the image host (postimage.org), which is downsizing some images served to some IPs (verified this through a few private VPNs).

VincentYu Jan 13, 2015, 10:44 AM
19 points
in reply to: NatPhilosopher’s comment on: What topics are appropriate for LessWrong?
Regardless of the conflicts between your beliefs and that of others, it is dishonest to misrepresent the writings of other people to bolster your arguments. Do not manipulate quotes from a report to make it say what you want it to say, even if you believe that the original report is incorrect.

VincentYu Jan 13, 2015, 8:52 AM
16 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: What topics are appropriate for LessWrong?
NatPhilosopher is also underhandedly manipulating quotations by lifting words out of context.

Take a look at NatPhilosopher’s first quotation and citation in their pièce de résistance arguing against the safety of pediatric vaccination:

In 2002 the National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO) convened an expert group to study safety issues with adjuvants in vaccines. Among their conclusions:

“pervasive uncertainty [from] missing data on pharmocokinetics and toxicities of aluminum injected into humans… There seems to be abundant data concerning risk levels for ingested aluminum, but scant data about risk levels for injected aluminum. The oral minimum risk level, for example, appears to be in the range of 2–60 mg/kg of aluminum per day but there are no comparable data for injected aluminum.”[1]

This does sound worrying. But let’s take a look at the actual report. Here are the quotations in context (emphases mine, italics are NatPhilosopher’s lifted words):

From the Metal Ions in Biology and Medicine International Symposium held immediately prior to the aluminum workshop, we learned about “pervasive uncertainty”, a phrase used in this workshop to denote missing data on pharmocokinetics and toxicities of aluminum injected into humans. Even with identification of areas needing further study, it was apparent that aluminum which has been used as a vaccine adjuvant for more than 70 years, has an established safety record with low incidence of reported adverse events.

[...]

There seems to be abundant data concerning risk levels for ingested aluminum, but scant data about risk levels for injected aluminum. The oral minimum risk level, for example, appears to be in the range of 2–60 mg/kg of aluminum per day but there are no comparable data for injected aluminum. The uncertainties notwithstanding, there appeared to be a large margin of safety for aluminum adjuvants.

Not so worrying with context, is it?

The actual conclusion of the report (emphases mine):

In summary, a variety of aluminum salts have useful physicochemical and immunogenic properties that lend these minerals to use in vaccines. Based on 70 years of experience, the use of salts of aluminum as adjuvants in vaccines has proven to be safe and effective. Aluminum as an adjuvant enhances antigen presentation and stimulates a type II immune response. It has been possible, using aluminum adjuvants, to reduce the number of injections and the amount of antigen per dose, and thereby decrease the toxicity of some antigens. Without extensive research, it is impossible to know how removal of aluminum from vaccines would affect the known benefits of vaccines in which it is contained. More pharmacokinetic data are needed but there is an apparent wide margin of safety with the use of aluminum adjuvants and reported adverse events have been mostly minor and of low incidence. MMF histologic lesions may be a consequence of the normal immune response and may, in fact, be a wholly serendipitous finding in patients with ascending myalgias and fatigue. Some identified areas of research include: expanding the aluminum pharmacokinetic database, especially following IM injection in young children, conducting bimetal (mercury and aluminum) toxicological studies in animals, identifying biomarkers of toxicity, defining the frequency and duration of MMF in normal controls, determining the role of aluminum in the pathophysiology of the MMF lesion, developing new adjuvants, and establishing new methods for administering immunizations.

VincentYu Dec 20, 2014, 2:58 PM
1 point
in reply to: B_For_Bandana’s comment on: Open thread, Dec. 15 - Dec. 21, 2014
Holden has written about donation restrictions on the GiveWell blog back in 2009 (bold and italics in original):
- We would guess that cases fitting the conditions for “meaningful restricted funding” are rare – i.e., when you give to a multiprogram organization, your donation usually will expand what they want to expand, regardless of how you restrict it.
- We have a general aversion to restricting donations. It seems like “micromanaging” an organization in this way is asking for trouble: the charity may avoid your intentions using technicalities or spend the “extra money” allocated to a program badly, and in any case, you are creating an extra headache for the charity.
Thus, our current rule of thumb is to find an organization whose existing priorities you are comfortable with – and give unrestricted.
See also the following on the GiveWell blog:
- The comments by GiveWell analysts Alexander Berger and Timothy Telleen-Lawton on giving to GiveWell in this recent post.
- Holden’s post on GiveWell’s funding needs in 2013 where he asked more donors to donate unrestricted to GiveWell. (For their latest budget and revenue forecasts, see this document from September.)

VincentYu Dec 20, 2014, 2:29 AM
3 points
in reply to: gwern’s comment on: LessWrong Help Desk—free paper downloads and more (2014)
Here.

VincentYu Dec 19, 2014, 7:47 AM
0 points
in reply to: gwern’s comment on: LessWrong Help Desk—free paper downloads and more (2014)
Requested.