So to first quote Hsu's description:

This graph displays the number of GWAS hits versus sample size for height, BMI, etc. Once the minimal sample size to discover the alleles of largest impact (large MAF, large effect size) is exceeded, one generally expects a steady accumulation of new hits at lower MAF / effect size. I expect the same sort of progress for g. (MAF = Minor Allele Frequency. Variants that are common in the population are easier to detect than rare variants.)

We can’t predict the sample size required to obtain most of the additive variance for g (this depends on the details of the distribution of alleles), but I would guess that about a million genotypes together with associated g scores will suffice. When, exactly, we will reach this sample size is unclear, but I think most of the difficulty is in obtaining the phenotype data. Within a few years, over a million people will have been genotyped, but probably we will only have g scores for a small fraction of the individuals.

I'll try to explain it in different terms. What you are looking at is a graph of 'results vs effort'. How much work do you have to do to get out some useful results? The importance of this is that it's showing you a visual version of statistical power analysis (introduction).

Ordinary power analysis is about examining the inherent zero-sum trade-offs of power vs sample size vs effect size vs statistical-significance, where you try to optimize each thing for one's particular purpose; so for example, you can choose to have a small (=cheap) sample size and a small Type I (false positives) error rate in detecting a small effect size - as long as you don't mind a huge Type II error rate (low power, false negative, failure to detect real effects).

If you look at my nootropics or sleep experiments, you'll see I do power analysis all the time as a way of understanding how big my experiments need to be before they are not worthlessly uninformative; if your sample size is too small, you simply won't observe anything, even if there really is an effect (eg. you might conclude, 'with such a small n as 23, at the predicted effect size and the usual alpha of 0.05, our power will be very low, like 10%, so the experiment would be a waste of time').

Even though we know intelligence is very influenced by genes, you can't find 'the genes for intelligence' by looking at just 10 people - but how many do you need to look at?

In the case of the graph, the statistical-significance is hardwired & the effect sizes are all known to be small, and we ignore power, so that leaves two variables: sample size and number of null-rejection/findings. The graph shows us simply that as we get a larger sample, we can successfully find more associations (because we have more power to get a subtle genetic effect to pass our significance cutoffs). Simple enough. It's not news to anyone that the more data you collect, the more results you get.

What's useful here is that the slope of the points is encoding the joint relationship of power & significance & effect size for genetic findings, so we can simply vary sample size and spit out estimated number of findings. The intercept remains uncertain, though. What Hsu finds so important about this graph is that it lets us predict for intelligence how many hits we will get at any sample size once we have a datapoint which then nails down a unique line. What's the datapoint? Well, he mentions the very interesting recent findings of ~3 associations - which happened at n=126k. So to plot this IQ datapoint and guessing at roughly where it would go (please pardon my Paint usage):

OK, but how does that let Hsu predict anything? Well, the slope ought to be the same for future IQ findings, since the procedures are basically the same. So all we have to do is guess at the line, and anchor it on this new finding:

So if you want to know what we'll find at 200000 samples, you extend the line and it looks like we'll have ~10 SNPs at that point. Or, if you wanted to know when we'll have found 100 SNPs for intelligence, you simply continue extending the line until it reaches 100 on the y-axis, which apparently Hsu thinks will happen somewhere around 1000000 on the x-axis (which extends off the screen because no one has collected that big a sample yet for anything else, much less intelligence).

I hope that helps; if you don't understand power, it might help to look at my own little analyses where the problem is usually much simpler.

That sounds like really exciting news to me

Well, keep in mind that Eliezer himself claims that "it's not as exciting as it sounds".

And of course you always need to have in mind that what Eliezer considers to be "the secret answer to the hard problem of conscious experience" may not be as satisfying an answer to you as it is to him.

After all, some people think that the non-secret answer to the hard problem of conscious experience is something like "consciousness is what an algorithm feels like from the inside" and this is quite non-satisfactory to me (and I think it was non-satisfactory to Eliezer too).

(And also, I think the bidding started at something like $4000.)

I got excited for the fraction of a second it took me to remember that everyone who could possibly want to bid could probably afford to spend more money than I have to my name on this without it cutting into their living expenses. Unless my plan was "Bid $900, hope no one outbids, ask Eliezer to get me a job as quickly as possible", which isn't really that exciting a category, however useful.

I might have bid on that, but the auction is already over.

So, I totally buy the "cognitive load decreases intellectual performance, both in life and on IQ tests" claim. This is very well replicated, and has immediate personal implications (don't try to remember everything, write it all down; try to minimize sources of stress in your life; try to think about as few projects at a time as possible).

I don't think it's valid to say "instead of A->B, it's B->A," or see this as a complete explanation, because the ~13 point drop is only present in times of financial stress. Take standardized school tests, and suppose that half of the minority students are under immediate financial stress (their parents just got a hefty car repair bill) and the other half aren't (the 'easy' condition in the test), whereas none of the majority students are under immediate financial stress. Then we should expect the minority students to be, on average, 6.5 points lower, but what we see is the gap of 15 points.

It's also plausible that the differentiatior between people is their reaction to stress--I know a lot of high-powered managers and engineers under significant stress at work, who lose much less than a standard deviation of their ability to make good decisions and focus on other things and so on. Some people even seem to perform better under stress, but it's hard to separate out the difference between motivation and fluid intelligence there.

The biggest problem I have with racists claiming racial realism is this.

Failing to convince your jailer to let you out is the highly likely outcome, so it is not very interesting. I would love to hear about any simulated AI winning against an informed opponent.

Do we still keep up with those secrecy shenanigans even when no MIRI employees were involved, or can you share some details?

On a wiki page. Allowing anyone to opt out.

The first step would be to gather data... probably in an article made for this purpose... or in a fresh open thread.

Creuncf gur fyvc bs cncre ybbxrq fbzrguvat yvxr guvf. (Qrfvtavat na nzovtenz jbhyq or nanybtbhf gb svaqvat zhygvcyr zrffntrf jvgu gur fnzr unfu.)

Thanks for all the poll submissions. I decided since I just finished Umineko, this is a good time to analyze the 49 responses.

The gist is that the direction seems to be as predicted and the effect size reasonable (odds-ratio of 1.77), but not big enough to yield any impressive level of statistical-significance (p=0.24):

R> poll <- read.csv("<http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/182368464/umineko-poll.csv>")
R> library(ordinal)
R> summary(clm(as.ordered(Certainty) ~ Crypto, data=poll))
formula: as.ordered(Certainty) ~ Crypto
data: poll
link threshold nobs logLik AIC niter max.grad cond.H
logit flexible 48 -30.58 67.16 5(0) 5.28e-09 2.9e+01
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)
Crypto 0.571 0.491 1.16 0.24
Threshold coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error z value
0|1 1.988 0.708 2.81
1|2 3.075 0.822 3.74
(1 observation deleted due to missingness)
R> exp(0.571)
[1] 1.77

Or if you prefer, a linear regression:

R> summary(lm(Certainty ~ Crypto, data=poll))
Call:
lm(formula = Certainty ~ Crypto, data = poll)
Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-0.409 -0.287 -0.287 -0.164 1.836
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 0.164 0.151 1.09 0.28
Crypto 0.122 0.117 1.05 0.30

I'm rather alarmed at how many people appear to have said they're very sure they know how he did it, on (I assume, but I think it's pretty clear) the basis of having thought of one very credible way he could have done it.

I'm going to be optimistic and suppose that all those people thought something like "Although gwern asked how sure we are that we know how it was done, context suggests that the puzzle is really 'find a way to do it' rather than 'identify the specific way used in this case', so I'll say 'very' even though for all I know there could be other ways'.

(For what it's worth, I pedantically chose the "middle" option for that question, but I found the same obvious solution as everyone else.)

Zhygvcyr ovgf bs cncre, boivbhfyl.

DUH

Downvoted because you made a poll in the open thread, thus making the RSS feed impossible to subscribe to, and producing a whole thread full of encrypted nonsense.

Gurer jrer abgrf sbe rnpu bs gur sbhe frnfbaf uvqqra va qvssrerag cynprf nebhaq gur ebbz. Gur pnyyre fvzcyl ersreerq ure gb gur uvqvat-cynpr bs gur abgr gung zngpurq ure nafjre.

Zl svefg gubhtug ba ernqvat gur ceboyrz - juvpu fgvyy frrzf yvxr zl org thrff, ba ersyrpgvba, gubhtu.

Qvqa'g ibgr ba gur "ubj fher ner lbh", orpnhfr V'z ab ybatre fher ubj fher V nz - V'z hasnzvyvne jvgu gur fubj, naq gur ersrerapr gb pelcgbtencul fhttrfgf fbzr bgure fbyhgvba (V'z snzvyvne jvgu ehqvzragnel zntvp gevpxf, juvpu vf cebonoyl jurer ZL fbyhgvba pbzrf sebz.) Ohg V pregnvayl qba'g unir "ab vqrn" ubj vg jnf qbar.

V pna guvax bs guerr jnlf bs qbvat guvf gevpx.

1. Ur uvq sbhe fyvcf bs cncre, bar sbe rnpu frnfba. Cerfhznoyl ur jvyy erzbir gur bgure guerr ng gur svefg bccbeghavgl.

2. Ur unf qbar fbzr erfrnepu gb qvfpbire fbzr snpg nobhg ure gb hfr va uvf qrzbafgengvba.

3. Fur unf hfrq ure snibevgr frnfba nf gur nafjre gb n frphevgl dhrfgvba ba n jro fvgr gung ur unf nqzva-yriry npprff gb.

Gurer znl or bgure jnlf. Jvgu fb znal, V pnaabg or irel fher gung nal fvatyr bar gung V pubbfr vf evtug.

Posted before I read other replies:

V fhfcrpg gurer ner sbhe fyvcf bs cncre va qvssrerag cnegf bs ure ebbz. Naq vs ur pbhyq farnx gurz va, gura gurer'f n ernfbanoyr punapr ur pna farnx gur guerr fyvcf ersreevat gb aba-jvagre frnfbaf bhg orsber fur svaqf gurz.

Yvxr frireny bs gur bgure pbzzragref V dhvpxyl fnj ubj guvf pbhyq or qbar jvgu onfvp fgntr zntvp, ohg qrfcvgr orvat snveyl snzvyvne jvgu pelcgb V qvqa'g vzzrqvngryl znxr gur pbaarpgvba gb pelcgb hagvy V fnj lbhe pbzzrag ba unfu cer-pbzzvgzragf. Univat n fvatyr pnabavpny yvfg bs lbhe cer-pbzzvgzragf. choyvfurq va nqinapr jbhyq frrz gb fbyir cngpu guvf fcrpvsvp irarenovyvgl.

V cnggrea zngpurq zl vqrn bs gur fbyhgvba gb gur onfvp fgntr zntvp gevpx bs univat znal uvqqra bcgvbaf naq znxvat gur znex guvax lbh bayl unq gur bar lbh fubjrq gurz, abg pelcgbtencul.

Mentally subtract my vote from "No idea" onto "Very" since apparently I can read poll answers better than poll questions.

Guvf "chmmyr" frrzf rnfl gb na rkgerzr, gb zr ng yrnfg. Gur gevivny fbyhgvba jbhyq or gb uvqr nyy gur cbffvoyr nafjref va qvssrerag cynprf, naq bayl gryy ure gb ybbx va gur cynpr jurer ur uvq gur nafjre ur trgf gbyq vf pbeerpg. (Va guvf pnfr, haqre gur pybpx.)

My thought was the same as palladias'. I'm not seeing an obvious way involving cryptography though, but I am somewhat familiar with it (I understand RSA and its proof).

Cerqvpgvba: Ur chg sbhe fyvcf bs cncre va gur ebbz (r.t. pybpx, grqql orne, fubr, cntr # bs grkgobbx), naq pubfr juvpu bowrpg gb qverpg ure gb onfrq ba ure erfcbafr. Ur'f unir gb erzbir gur bgure guerr fbbavfu, ohg ur boivbhfyl unq npprff bapr, naq vs gurl'er nyy va fhssvpvragyl bofpher cynprf, vg jbhyq or cerggl rnfl

V'z abg fher V jbhyq unir pnyyrq guvf n sbez bs pelcgbtencul jrer V hacevzrq, ohg jvgu bayl sbhe cbffvoyr nafjref ur whfg unf gb cvpx sbhe uvqvat cynprf naq gryy ure gb ybbx va gur evtug bar, evtug?

Does this mean that I should attribute zero negative utility to dust speck going into my eye?

You could consider the analogous problem of waking up during surgery & then forgetting it afterwards.

The dust speck is just a symbol for the smallest negative utility unit. Just imagine something else.

Probably use dban.

"Don't be a dick" is now "Wheaton's law"? Pfeh!

How can I apply rationality to business?

• Avoid sunk costs.
• If stuff doesn't work figure out why and (in most cases) do different stuff.
• When predicting how long a project will take consider how long similar tasks tend to take and use that as a (rather strong) guide.

"Also, insurance companies can reduce the cost of health care by negotiating lower prices for you. "

This is the case even with a high deductable plan. The insurance will have a different rate when you use an in-network doctor or hospital service. If you haven't met the deductible and you go in, they'll send you a bill--but that bill will still be much cheaper than if you had gone in and paid out of pocket (like paying less than half).

But make sure that the high deductable plan actually has a cheaper monthly payment by an amount that matters. With new regulations of what must be covered, the differences between plans may not end up being very big.

(Actually, that would be an interesting experiment - remove or replace fraction x of the letters in a paragraph and see at what average x participants can no longer make a "corrected" copy.)

Studies of this form have been done at least on the edge case where all the material removed is from the end (ie. tests of the ability of subjects to predict the next letter in an English text). I'd be interested to see your more general test but am not sure if it has been done. (Except, perhaps, as a game show).

Yes, it's been studied quite a bit by linguists. You can find some pointers in http://www.gwern.net/Notes#efficient-natural-language which may be helpful.

What about dust specks in the eyes of 3^^^3 poodles? Or more to the point, what is the moral cost of killing one person vs one poodle? How many poodles lives would we trade for the life of one person?

I observe that the answer to the last question is not constrained to be positive.

Do the nervous systems of 3^^^3 nematodes beat the nervous systems of a mere 7x10^9 humans? If not, why not?

It's like what the TV preacher told Bart Simpson: "Yes, a deathbed conversion is a pretty sweet angle, but if you join now, you're also covered in case of accidental death and dismemberment!"

(may not be an exact quote)

I don't think it's been asked before on Less Wrong, and it's an interesting question.

It depends on how much you value not dying. If you value it very strongly, the risk of sudden, terminal, but not immediately fatal injuries or illnesses, as mentioned by paper-machine, might be unacceptable to you, and would point toward joining Alcor sooner rather than later.

The marginal increase your support would add to the probability of Alcor surviving as an institution might also matter to you selfishly, since this would increase the probability that there will exist a stronger Alcor when you are older and will likely need it more than you do now.

Additionally, while it's true that it's unlikely that Alcor would reach you in time if you were to die suddenly, compare this risk to the chance of your survival if alternately you don't join Alcor soon enough, and, after your hypothetical fatal car crash, you end up rotting in the ground.

And hey, if you really want selfish reasons: signing up for cryonics is high-status in certain subcultures, including this one.

There are also altruistic reasons to join Alcor, but that's a separate issue.

There is some background base rate of sudden, terminal, but not immediately fatal, injury or illness.

For example, I currently do not value life insurance highly, and therefore I value cryonics insurance even less.

Otherwise, there's only some marginal increase in the probability of Alcor surviving as an institution. Seeing as there's precedent for healthy cryonics orgs to adopt the patients of unhealthy cryonics orgs, this marginal increase should be viewed as a yet more marginal increase in the survival of cryonics locations in your locality.

(Assuming transportation costs are prohibitive enough to be treated as a rounding error.)

Not explicitly as an axiom AFAIK, but if you're valuing states-of-the-world, any choice you make will lead to some state, which means that unless your valuation is circular, the answer is yes.

Basically, as long as your valuation is VNM-rational, definitely yes. Utilitarians are a special case of this, and I think most consequentialists would adhere to that also.

Have you tried searching the LW bugtracker or using a different browser?

He was trying to pass a law to suppress religious freedoms of small sects. That doesn't raise the sanity waterline, it just increases tensions and hatred between groups.

Political activism, especially in the third world, is inherently dangerous, whether or not it is rationality-related.

One datapoint: I know of one household (two adults, one child) which worked out chores by having people list which chores they liked, which they tolerated, and which they hated. It turned out that there was enough intrinsic motivation to make taking care of the house work.

And that's it. No arguing about who cleaned it last. No debating whether it really needs to cleaned. No room for misogynist cultural machines to pressure the wife into doing more than her fair share. Just a market transaction that is efficient and fair.

P.S.: those last two sentences ("No room for misogynist cultural machines to pressure the wife into doing more than her fair share. Just a market transaction that is efficient and fair.") also remind me of "If those women were really oppressed, someone would have tended to have freed them by then."

Most couples agree that chores and common goods should be split equally.

I'm skeptical that most couples agree with this.

Anyway, all of these types of 'chore division' systems that I've seen so far totally disregard human psychology. Remember that the goal isn't to have a fair chore system. The goal is to have a system that preserves a happy and stable relationship. If the resulting system winds up not being 'fair', that's ok.

This sounds interesting for cases where both parties are economically secure.

However I can't see it working in my case since my housemates each earn somewhere around ten times what I do. Under this system, my bids would always be lowest and I would do all the chores without exception. While I would feel unable to turn down this chance to earn money, my status would drop from that of an equal to that of a servant. I would find this unacceptable.

Wow someone else thought of doing this too!

My roommate and I started doing this a year ago. It went pretty well for the first few months. Then our neighbor heard about how much we were paying eachother for chores and started outbidding us.

I can see it working when all parties are trustworthy and committed to fairness, which is a high threshold to begin with. Also, everyone has to buy into the idea of other people being autonomous agents, with no shoulds attached. Still, this might run into trouble when one party badly wants something flatly unacceptable to the other and so unable to afford it and feeling resentful.

One (unrelated) interesting quote:

my womb is worth about the cost of one graduate-level course at Columbia, assuming I’m interested in bearing your kid to begin with.

Roger and I wrote a web app for exactly this purpose - dividing chores via auction. This has worked well for chore management for a house of 7 roommates, for about 6 months so far.

The feminism angle didn't even occur to us! It's just been really useful for dividing chores optimally.

I can see this working better than a dysfunctional household, but if you're both in the habit of just doing things, this is going to make everything worse.

Wasn't it Ariely's Predictably Irrational that went over market norms vs. tribe norms? If you just had ordinary people start doing this, I would guess it would crash and burn for the obvious market-norm reasons (the urge to game the system, basically). And some ew-squick power disparity stuff if this is ever enforced by a third party or even social pressure.

Give it all to mugger B obviously. I almost certainly am experiencing -3^^^3 utilions according to almost any measure every millisecond anyway, given I live in a Big World.

I may be fighting the hypothetical here, but ...

If utility is unbounded, maximum disutility is undefined, and if it's bounded, then 3^^^3 is by definition smaller than the maximum so you should pay all to mugger B.

Pay both Muggers a split of the money: For example: If you pay half to each, and they're both telling the truth, you have a 25% chance of not getting either disutility and not having to resist/escape at all (unless one or both is faking, which may improve your odds.)

I think trading a 10% chance of utility A for a 10% chance of utility B, with B < A is irrational per the definition of utility (as far as I understand; you can have marginal diminishing utility on money, but not marginally diminishing utility on *utility. I'm less sure about risk aversion though.)