In kinda answer to your question;

Background: I run a lesswrong group - we are not on meetup. I have run other groups in the past and attend several groups as well.

From another LW group; and something I take to be true; (from the inside of a group) meetup seems to cross promote your group to many many people; whether they are relevant people or not; is not up to meetup to deal with. They then show up; and realise that they are not quite the target; then leave. In the mean-time your group gets diluted while the meetup-style deluge of people appear and disperse.

<them people I try to avoid> happen less often than I have expected. From personal experience; trying out a group once does not equal permanent commitment; its worth trying once; if only to see who the <losers> are in your town and decide it is in fact worth avoiding them.

From a cost/benefit or utilons perspective; you are burning a few hours for a range of opportunities including meeting new people; finding new good things and learning new things.

How do you know meetups all meetups attract "losers"? What is - to you - the defining characteristic of such "losers"? How certain are you that your personal experience with one kind of meetup generalizes well to all meetups? How do you know there are fewer or no losers elsewhere, e.g. on the internet?

This filter applies even before they invent technology. Brains use lots of energy and development time. This is typically selected against. Therefore most organisms only evolve the minimum amount of intelligence they need. And human level intelligence is never an advantage in most environments.

So you need some really weird set of conditions to create an environment that selects for high intelligence, and doesn't select too strongly against energy efficiency or development time. I don't know what these conditions are, but they only occurred once on Earth, over hundreds of millions of years. This suggests these conditions occur very rarely, and we might just be very lucky.

They're r-selected like insects, i.e. their natural reproduction process involves creating lots of children and then allowing most to die.

That doesn't seem like it would lend itself to evolving culture. Specifically, since parents don't invest in their offspring they don't tell them what they've learned. Thus no matter how smart individuals are, knowledge doesn't pass to the next generation.

More generally, you can imagine a lot of failure modes where an alien species evolves to become intelligent, but cannot build technological civilization because it cannot achieve large scale social cooperation.

Your Malthusian collapse seems to be conditional on some particulars of aliens' biology, but the Great Filter has to be very very general and almost universal.

I have two somewhat contradictory arguments.

First, this is probably a poor candidate for the great filter because it lacks the quality of comprehensiveness. Remember that a threat is not a candidate for a great filter if it merely exterminates 90%, or 99%, of all sentient species. Under those conditions, it's still quite easy to populate the stars with great and powerful civilizations, and so such a threat fails to explain the silence. Humans seem to have ably evaded the malthusian threat so far, in such a way that is not immediately recognizable as a thermodynamic miracle, so it's reasonable to expect that a nontrivial fraction of all civilizations would do so. At least up to our current stage of development.

Second, I'll point out that bullets two and four are traits possessed by digital intelligences in competition with one another (possibly the first as well), and they supplement it with a bullet you should have included but didn't- functional immortality. These conditions correspond to what Nick Bostrom calls a 'multipolar scenario', a situation in which there exist a number of different superintelligences with contradicting values. And indeed, there are many smart people who think about the dangers of these selection pressures to a sufficiently advancd civilization.

So, malthusian pressures on biological systems are unlikely to explain the apparent lack of spacefaring civilizations. On the other hand, malthusian pressures on technologically optimized digital entities (possibly an obligate stage of civilization) may be much more of a threat, perhaps even one deserving the name 'Great Filter'.

Presuming free will references something in the first place, it would reference an infinite set, by its nature. I don't think you can have one.

Are you asking for a procedure for identifying acts of free will (the doable kind of extensive definition) or a set of in-out exemplars (ostensive definition)?

Eliezer set the problem of dissolving the question of free will as a beginning exercise in the practice of dissolving problems. The link includes a link to his solution, but he recommends solving the problem on one's own before reading his answer.

His solution seems satisfactory to me. I do not know if this solution can already be found in academic philosophy, or what academic philosophers think about it, but in shorter form it is stated in this Zen story.

EVEN MATERIALISTS CRAVE RELIGION

Even materalists crave some things that are traditionally associated with religion.

FTFY.

We should do something about this meme that "meaning" has to be associated with "believing in ontologically basic mental things".

He is also running to be U.S. President, briefly posted on LW, and wrote an Amazon review of my book. He has managed to get lots of publicity for transhumanism, and I think on net will do tranhumanism lots of good.

Sorry about you having to prewrite comments in notebook (or gnuedit or whatever). The easiest resolution might be to resolve your browser-crashing problem. Barring that, best of luck in figuring out where stuff in comment boxes gets saved by the browser, and how to make sure it happens.

(The line spacing got all wacko, sorry about that)

That prompted me to look up how to make line breaks in Markdown syntax, which I'd been wondering about myself for a while.

Try typing two or more spaces and then hitting enter
whenever you want a new line.

I asked my son Alex to post this because I'm proud of his writing skill, but also to show a challenge of raising a child without religion. He is far from obsessed with death, and told me he is thinking of death less than 1% of the time. Still, it would be comforting to be able to honestly tell him that he has nothing to fear from death, although knowing Alex he would use this as a counterargument when I tell him to be safe by, for example, buckling his seat-belt or looking both ways when crossing the street.

I think it's useful to have everything concentrated into one post. That makes it easier for people to link to the post if they consider it to be the best exploration of the topic on the internet.

Well, let's see, what's the current word count?

That paragraph you quoted doesn't sound smart to me. It seems like it's argues against a strawman. Scientists who studies issues like this usually don't publish raw correlations but try to control for various factors they can think of.

Of course you can still criticise that scientists failed to control for relevant factors but that means you actually have to read the papers.

You can also make general arguments against the usefulness of regression analysis but Scott doesn't make those in that article.

One option might be to paste and save, and then edit the html (by clicking the html button).

I am completely unsurprised.

Eliezer wants to be a guru. No one calls him on it. There is an enormous amount of unhealthy hero worship. What did you expect, exactly?

Eliezer is constitutionally incapable of doing anything without coming across as hilariously over-the-top arrogant, and at some point instead of fighting it he just turned it into his style so that now it’s kind of hard to tell when he’s joking or not.

-- Yvain on EY.

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/24659/resources-for-learning-domain-theory

For a moment I was all ready to recommend Domain-Driven Design by Eric Evans. Then I realized you meant the topic in mathematics, not the process of consulting domain experts in software development.

Compare to driving vs. being a passenger in a car driving on a twisty road. I often find the former fun, and the latter decidedly uncomfortable, because the first is a tightly coupled feedback loop and the second is highly varying inputs without much in the way of predictability or control.

"Head-eye" coordination is a thing; the neck muscles and the eye muscles communicate closely, and one would expect that the visual cortex might have access to some of that information as well. Breaking that link will violate expectations on a perceptual level.

Not everyone can easily adapt to immersion-style media. The first time I heard surround speakers in a cinema theater, in 1999, I hated it, and I still do to this day; I find it horribly distracting.

POV results in jarring perspective changes and it makes it harder for the viewer to orient themselves and understand what is going on. Historically there were also technical obstacles, but steadicam + digital video make it more feasible. Another problem is it makes staging more difficult for obvious reasons.

A good example of POV film-making is the British comedy Peep Show, which I found almost unwatchable at first because of the jarring shifts in perspective. Still a great show, but the POV is mostly a gimmick you have to get used to rather than a benefit:

Peep Show's unique "point of view" shooting style was one of the reasons for its success, but it also stopped it being a breakout hit, said one of the team behind it.

"It made it feel original and fresh and got it commissioned for a second series, but it stopped it from being a breakout hit and stopped it finding a bigger audience," said Andrew O'Connor, chief executive of production company Objective Productions.

It's likely to result in shakycam or at least large sudden changes in field of view, which I find disorienting.

Theoretically, the market portfolio, which is the efficient portfolio according to Modern Portfolio Theory should replicate the world's assets weighted by value. For America, household (and non-profit) net worth is ~$85T and the value of real estate holdings is ~$14T (value less mortgages) (source), so about 16% is pretty justifiable. This is all pretty back of the envelope though.

I have a friend who invests in rental real estate, and he says he can give me a guaranteed 10% ROI if I invest $10,000+ with him, or 15% if I invest $100,000+.

I don't believe it. If he could guarantee it, he would instead borrow from a bank at 3-5% as much as he can (potentially using his house as a collateral) and invest that. Besides, at that rate of return, other investors would flock in, including fund managers, and saturate the market.

he can give me a guaranteed 10% ROI

Heh. Ask him to actually guarantee it -- that is, structure the transaction as a loan yielding 10% (or 15%) with him fully liable for the principal and the interest. See if he agrees :-/ Don't forget to check that the counterparty (the borrower) has assets to pay you back.

There are financial securities called REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts) which invest in property (sometimes commercial, sometimes rental, read the prospectus) and return the income to you less a haircut. As a sanity check you can take a look at how high returns do they provide.

It is very necessary when reading certain Greg Egan novels.

Since I have a hard time remembering names (not just of people, I have a huge list of gene names at my desk in the lab) sometimes I need to make a minor-character list for a book.

Why did you decide to keep a reading journal in the first place? This might help you come to an answer.

I have taken notes on fiction only a few times when reading for pleasure - mostly in reading sf when some new idea or speculation made me wonder about its further implications and I jotted it down for discussion with other like minded people. That worked fine and I still do it once in a while. I also took notes once or twice when reading fiction as part of a reading group, again with the idea of highlighting discussion points that interested me. But I felt that taking notes detracted from the actual reading and enjoying part of reading - discussion wasn't any different without notes.

Possibly relevant: Festival of Dangerous Ideas: Panel - The Price Of Modern Life Is Depression And Loneliness.

One of the main points I got from that is that it is not at all clear that mental illness is growing, because one thing that has definitely been growing is the sensitivity of diagnosis and if there was any growth of mental illness it'd just be obscured by that.

I'd add that alcoholism can mask a lot of smaller but more complicated mental issues, and since alcoholism is going down, those should be becoming more visible.

The scandal about /r/fatpeoplehate directed my attention to the obesity problem and its outcomes and one weird angle I figured out is that people are increasingly better at harming themselves with things that considered harmless. For example, we would be horrified if we saw a 8 year old child purchase vodka or drugs, but purchasing chocolate looks entirely innocent and harmless. And yet, it seems, more and more adults can kill themselves with chocolate and pizza.

The interesting thing here is that sugar or similar things do not give such a high as alcohol or most drugs and the health effects are far more visible, a wide girth is more visible and less likely to be hidden by an Ugh Field than a scarred liver.

So it sounds a lot like this is a particularly unlikely form of destructive hedonism, low pay-off and highly visible costs. Why is it becoming so popular then?

The best answer I could figure out was ease. It is simply far easier than finding a drug dealer and less shameful than chugging whiskey I guess.

The lesson is that even in self-destructive hedonism there is a growing trend to go for the easy and not too much fun (chocolate) not the hard and much fun (drugs). I think back in 1968 an acid-dropping hippie would have simply called that lazy or boring.

My point is here a kind of a "not with a bang but with a whimper" kind of outcome, not particularly spectacularly ka-boomish Great Filters but simply the loss of energy and drive.

When considering candidates for the Great Filter, you must keep in mind that it stopped all the to-be universe conquerors in our past light cone. Your suggestion doesn't seem that insurmountable.

What do you want to optimize for? ("everything" is not a good answer)

Prestige as viewed by students or professors doesn't match funding provided by NIH, which focuses on diseases that affect Americans, both by mandate and because of lobbying by individuals. Other sources of funding are drug companies that don't have much opportunity to sell to poor people, and disease-specific charities, established by rich people because of relatives who have the diseases of rich people.

Or maybe it has nothing to do with prestige, but the perk of a field trip.

By some estimates around "one out of every two people who have ever lived have died of malaria." This just might be contributing to the medical community's interest in malaria.

I think the actions of the Gates Foundation matter more than GiveWell's when it comes to the general public impression that malaria research is important.

One can imagine someone who hears promotion of the AMF but doesn't grok effective altruism deciding that it means they should be researching Malaria. Even without such promotion, Malaria is a big-name disease and I wouldn't be surprised at non-EAs ending up contributing to an oversupply of malaria researchers because they don't realise that some disease that's less of a big deal but has fewer people working on it might be better.

It's extremely hard to ban the research worldwide, and then it's extremely hard to enforce such decision.

Firstly, you'll have to convince all the world's governments (btw, there are >200) to pass such laws.

Then, you'll likely have all powerful nations doing the research secretly, because it provides some powerful weaponry / other ways to acquire power; or just out of fear that some other government will do it first.

And even if you somehow managed to pass the law worldwide, and stopped governments from doing research secretly, how would you stop individual researchers?

The humanity hasn't prevented the use of nuclear bombs, and has barely prevented a full-blown nuclear war; while nuclear bombs require national-level industry to produce, and are available to a few countries only. How can we hope to ban something which can be researched and launched in your basement?

You make the mistake of equating something being generally banned and it not happening. Selling MDMA is generally banned. On the other hand it's still possible to purchase it in many places.

If society doesn't end first, banning X-risks research worldwide is an effort that must be prolonged indefinitely, always ensuring that nobody ever fiddles with her computer in a way that could create an AGI. This means that with time the probability to enforce successfully the ban always decreases.
Building an FAI instead, is an effort that once accomplished stays so: its probability, however small, might even increase with time.

That last part plays a role in my thinking. But I'd consider the world ban idea if I thought for a second that we could convince, not only China, but every nation-level player that might pose a threat. If you're imagining a UN ban that does the job, you have either a mental picture of AI research or a level of confidence in the UN that I find bizarre.

Do it if you can.

If the founders did it, they'd have to be careful to retain control so that shutting down the company would be an option, and a decision they had the authority to make. It's easy for investors and VCs to influence or take over running a company, without extraordinary pushback from founders, especially if the company is making money. "Could be aborted if it was excessively speeding-up AI progress, or was otherwise net harmful" sounds glib to me. Making a plan of how to do that, exactly, and under what conditions it would be done, and putting that into contracts right from the start, would be important. Otherwise, it wouldn't get done.

Studying risk analysis, and failure analysis, and the human factors of how people respond to emergencies would be helpful.

I can honestly say that utilizing a memory palace and linking was a significant jump in my life. I started training myself in their use about a year ago, but never had to put them into action in a constrained time frame until recently. It felt wonderful. Currently working on incorporating spaced repetition into my routine. My chief problem is prioritizing lists. Figuring out what needs to be memorized in a subject requires some understanding, and I usually lack that in subjects I'm deeply interested in.

A combination of mnemonic techniques and mental math methods that I'd never encountered in childhood make a huge difference. I wonder why they are not taught in schools.

CARVER encourages tertiary recon to validate whatever data was initially gathered. I'm sure this wouldn't be a problem for a neo-rationalist civilian or SOCOM, but when it's applied in regular Army, the element that's engaged in tertiary recon has incentive to simply agree with the initial report, especially if that's the sort of thing command encourages.

That's about all the topics I have serious familiarity with on that thread. Will check out the rest.