Unless there are large enough demographics for which this post looks credible while FB conspiracies do not.
yagudin
Karma: 395
If the only issue is tone, you could write something like: ‘Initially, I was confused/surprised by the core claim you made but reading this, this, and that [or thinking for 15 minutes/further research] made me believe that your position is basically correct’. This looks quite
[...] “Yes, you are correct about that” comes across as quite arrogant [...]
I attended Epistea Summer Experiment and greatly enjoyed it. (At the same time I am quite skeptical about value of any rationality workshops for EA-inspired work.)
I think Nuno’s time-capped analysis is good.
[Link] Intro to causal inference by Michael Nielsen (2012)
Thanks for the post. I would recommend reading the original blog post by Noam Brown as it has the proper level of exposition and more details/nuances.
Overall, it seems that Pluribus is conceptually very similar to Libratus; sadly, no new insights about >2-player games. My impression is that because poker players don’t collude/cooperate too much, playing something close to an equilibrium against them will make you rich.
If one has 2 possible models to fit a data set, by how much should one penalize the model which has an additional free parameter?
Penalization might not be necessary if your learning procedure is stochastic and favors simple explanations. I encourage you to take a look on the nice poster/paper «Deep learning generalizes because the parameter-function map is biased towards simple functions» (PAC-Bayesian learning theory + empirical intuitions).
Rohin, thank you for the especially long and informative newsletter.
When there are more samples, we get a lower validation loss [...]
I guess you’ve meant
a higher validation loss?
Alexey, happy birthday to your podcast! I’ve just subscribed and hope you would post consistently in the future. How many subscribers do you have?
If you are curious why Russian chatroom is so big I encourage you to read about Kocherga. With 174 karma and 54 votes, it is the highest rated non-curated LW post at the moment.
I would like to highlight Russian LessWrong Slack, which has 2000+ registered users, ~150 WAU (among which ~50 are posting) and ~80 DAU (~25 are posting).
Said Achmiz’s LessWrong Diaspora Map lists 12 chatrooms.
I am quite sure, that Moscow’s LW will celebrate a Secular Solstice on 21 or 22 of Dec.
An example from Feynman’s «The Character of Physical Law»:
The next guy who did something great was Maxwell, who obtained the laws of electricity and magnetism. What he did was this. He put together all the laws of electricity, due to Faraday and other people who came before him, and he looked at them and realized that they were mathematically inconsistent. In order to straighten it out he had to add one term to an equation. He did this by inventing for himself a model of idler wheels and gears and so on in space. He found what the new law was – but nobody paid much attention because they did not believe in the idler wheels. We do not believe in the idler wheels today, but the equations that he obtained were correct. So the logic may be wrong but the answer right.
Great to hear!
Wikipedia page for ‘Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia’ is a great source of useful sleep related habits.
Divestment and mission hedging are examples of politically motivated finance activity. Divestment seems to be somewhat popular, but inefficient. Mission hedging is not well-known, but probably quite good.
While for me it is, indeed, a reason to put less weight on their analysis or expect less useful work/analysis to be done by them in a short/medium-term.
But I think this consideration, also, weakens certain types of arguments about the CDC’s lack of judgment/untrustworthiness. For example, arguments like “they did this, but should have done better” loses part of its bayesian weight as the organization likely made a lot of decisions under time pressure and other constraints. And things are more likely to go wrong if you’re under-stuffed and hence prioritize more aggressively.
I don’t expect to have a good judgment here, but it seems to me that “testing kits the CDC sent to local labs were unreliable” might fall here. It might have been a right call for them to distribute tests quickly and ~skip ensuring that tests didn’t have a false positive problem.