In response to Two Growth Curves
Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 02 October 2015 10:38:47PM *  3 points [-]

How long since you first drew these graphs? Have you since considered where you are standing on the graph? Does the graph look (or rather feel) like you initially thought?

Comment author: AnnaSalamon 03 October 2015 09:26:02PM *  1 point [-]

I think so, roughly, although it's not like I have anything like metrics. (It's been 5 or 6 years.)

Comment author: AnnaSalamon 13 May 2015 08:31:50PM 2 points [-]

The program is no longer conditional; we're on; group looks awesome; applications still welcome.

Comment author: Dorikka 01 May 2015 12:33:45AM 1 point [-]

It may help to mention in what way the event is conditional. Summer is a rather valuablr time to many who may attend, and some types of back up plans (internship) are hard to make.

Comment author: AnnaSalamon 01 May 2015 03:45:52AM 1 point [-]

The event is conditional on finding 14+ good participants. Applications are looking good, and I'm optimistic, but it's not certain yet. We will try to finalize things as soon as we can.

Comment author: AlexMennen 30 April 2015 03:30:55PM 1 point [-]

Why does this program rely on AI risk being within the Overton window? I would guess that the majority of people interested in this were already interested in AI risk before it went mainstream.

Comment author: AnnaSalamon 30 April 2015 07:48:08PM 5 points [-]

First, because the high-math community seems to contain many who are interested now (and have applied), who it would've been harder to interest before. Second, because running such a program for MIRI is more compatible with CFAR's branding, and CFAR's ability to appeal to a wide audience, now than before.

Comment author: Vaniver 29 April 2015 02:15:21PM 0 points [-]

And, contrary to my initial fears, interest and applications seem good, so far.

The number of applications seem good, or the quality seems good? I can't help but suspect that better candidates are more likely to have alternate plans.

Comment author: AnnaSalamon 29 April 2015 04:18:51PM 3 points [-]

Both, actually.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 29 April 2015 08:52:40AM 9 points [-]

Advertising this this late is probably suboptimal: I'd expect most people to already have made their summer plans, and arranging to have three weeks off from work/studies/whatever is something that most folks need a lot of advance notice for.

Comment author: AnnaSalamon 29 April 2015 01:49:42PM *  9 points [-]

Indeed. The program is a last-minute idea, and we considered waiting until next year for this reason; but it seemed better to get started. And, contrary to my initial fears, interest and applications seem good, so far.

The overton window has shifted on AI risk; this program would not have been planable a year ago. I feel a bad for the folks who are finding out about this late, and who would've wanted to come and now have to decide between breaking existing plans and waiting for a future year (if we run these future years); but it still seems good we're doing it now.

Comment author: shminux 28 April 2015 08:43:39PM 8 points [-]

Are there mathematical prerequisites, e.g. knowing computability/complexity theory?

Comment author: AnnaSalamon 29 April 2015 04:24:31AM 4 points [-]

We'll be looking for both math aptitude and math knowledge, but there are no formal prereqs. The program will be structured to enable folks with very different initial levels of background skill, CFAR experience, Sequences experience, etc. to teach each other, to separate into different sections when appropriate, and to all be part of a single effort while also all having each of their skill-levels pushed. We expect a diverse group, with different folks initially skilled / new to different components of the work. It should be a lot of fun.

Comment author: ahbwramc 29 April 2015 02:38:53AM 3 points [-]

Well, I signed up for an interview (probably won't amount to anything, but it's too good of an opportunity to just ignore). After signing up though it occurred to me that this might be a US-only deal. Would my being Canadian be a deal-breaker?

Comment author: AnnaSalamon 29 April 2015 02:40:07AM *  4 points [-]

Folks from all countries are welcome.

Comment author: pjeby 07 February 2015 05:50:35PM 9 points [-]

I expect that The Work of Byron Katie will be particularly useful for your type 3 classification, as it's specifically intended for getting system 1 to update on "X should/shouldn't be/do Y" beliefs. (e.g. "that person shouldn't be making munching sounds")

Per note 6, The Work actually involves a process of asking "Is that true?" about your beliefs, along with some other questions, and some pattern reversals... eg. "I shouldn't be making munching sounds", which helps in realizing that you actually have options.

For example, options that were not obvious before because system 1 was so stuck on the idea that things just shouldn't be that way. (For example, you might suddenly realize that you can wear earplugs, leave the room, politely ask someone to stop, etc.)

Of course, it might be even more helpful to question the belief "I shouldn't be petty", as it would have an even broader positive impact. ;-)

I say that because I've noticed in general that the impulses which propel people to self-improve are precisely the impulses that need to be negated in order for them to actually improve. That, e.g. a desire to "not be petty" leads precisely to a continued experience of one's self as being petty... in much the same way that the desire to not be an inadequate writer leads to a continued experience of feeling inadequate as a writer.

The thing that distinguishes these desires from healthy ones is that they're about you (the generic "you", not you, Anna Salomon specifically), rather than about the world, and that they are trying to avoid a perceived negative about the self, rather than being a desire to improve who you already are. (Even if the surface phrasing of the desire is positive, it's the emotional "tone" (as you called it) that matters.)

"Not being petty" or "being a good enough writer" are self-descriptions, not goals. A goal is, "have a good relationship with person X" or "have a good ad written". These are 1) not about one's self, and 2) can be reduced to positively-stated sensory descriptions of outside-world phenomena, without reference to your internal state.

Conversely, self-directed improvement goals (what Heidi Grant Halvorson calls "be good" goals) are negative descriptions of internal state, and lead to lots of back-and-forth and frustration because there isn't actually anything for you to optimize or move towards. All you can do is continually run headfirst into whatever you are trying to prohibit yourself from experiencing: i.e., the awareness of yourself as being "petty" or an "inadequate writer". Awareness of these self-descriptions triggers a negative self-judgment, which is painful. So your brain tries to avoid awareness, but this only perpetuates whatever outside situation is triggering the awareness (munching, needing to have a finished ad), because you're not doing anything to actually resolve the situation.

So, the solution is to question the belief that one ought not to be petty (or ought to be a good writer, or whatever), so as to discover that it is not necessary to achieve some state of perfect internal grace in order to accomplish one's true, external goals. Systems 1 and 2 will usually object, of course, because System 1 thinks that if you give up on not being petty, something awful is going to happen, and System 2 will back System 1 up with perfectly logical reasons why giving up the injunction to not be petty will in due course lead to the fall of civilization as we know it. ;-)

One of the peculiar side-effects of the way our brains render these personal injunctions is that they act like an override on both System 1 and System 2. We can't actually think about solutions to the problem of a munching noise, if the injunction is triggered by the mere thought of our not liking the noise. (Because in our mind, "not liking a noise" equates to "being petty".) So we don't even get so far as considering solutions, because we're barely even allowed to admit there's a problem.

Which is why just admitting to problems is often a helpful first step. Admitting to one's self that, "yes, actually, I am petty, if petty means disliking munching noises. And yes, I am an inadequate writer, if I define that as "not having written this ad yet"." In each case, the problem isn't the (accurate!) self-definitions, but rather, the belief that the self-definition is horrible and ought to be avoided at all costs. (And/or, the belief that the pejorative labels "petty" and "inadequate" are truly relevant or applicable to the neutral facts of the situation.)

Anyway, an awful lot of stuff is like this. Enough so that I've chosen to primarily specialize in the field of just problems that work like this. Tons of addictive and self-sabotaging behaviors build on things just like this, so I'm not going to run out of people to help any time soon. ;-)

Comment author: AnnaSalamon 10 February 2015 11:37:29PM 1 point [-]

I expect that The Work of Byron Katie will be particularly useful for your type 3 classification, as it's specifically intended for getting system 1 to update on "X should/shouldn't be/do Y" beliefs. (e.g. "that person shouldn't be making munching sounds")

Hmm... I actually read "The Work" a year or two ago, and mostly intentionally avoid recommending it to people: it seems to me that it contains powerful techniques for helping with the Type 3 classification above (as you say), but that it tends to draw people into classifying nearly all problems as Type 3, and into removing many drives that would have been better used as rocket fuel toward action.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on how Byron Katie interacts with Type 5 (worthy uses of shower thoughts and of persistent drive/energy) , or whether you think there are Type 5 cases of persistent wishing/drive that are worth keeping.

Comment author: Alicorn 07 February 2015 01:24:24AM 4 points [-]

Is that my cartoon?

Comment author: AnnaSalamon 07 February 2015 02:14:06AM 3 points [-]

Yep! Forgot to note it; edited to include attribution. Thanks for the cartoon.

View more: Prev | Next