Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: Dr_Manhattan 21 August 2017 08:46:20PM 0 points [-]

Org-mode is an emacs outliner plugin that has clocking also

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 01 August 2017 08:16:32AM 0 points [-]

Meta Thread

Comment author: Dr_Manhattan 01 August 2017 04:14:38PM 1 point [-]

Slightly overlapping with Online Videos, but I'd love to recommend and be recommended online courses

Comment author: Dr_Manhattan 30 July 2017 01:14:30PM 1 point [-]

Curious if you've looked into Helen Fisher's personality dimensions. After reading her stuff I wanted to pull my hair out for poor science, but it also felt like she's a great observational anthropologist and did identify some core personality dimensions.

It was also interesting that she "based" her dimensions on endocrinology (testosterone/estrogen, dopamine/serotonin). It felt original and possibly true.

Comment author: moridinamael 27 July 2017 02:00:20PM 3 points [-]

Did anybody else immediately start trying to think of how to munchkin/minmax this technique?

Comment author: Dr_Manhattan 27 July 2017 08:25:57PM 1 point [-]

What definition of munchkin/minmax are you referring to? I've heard the terms before but this usage isn't clear and seems pretty specific

Comment author: MrMind 26 July 2017 09:40:30AM 0 points [-]

So eventually truth win out.

Eh, no, apparently. Although the article is comforting.

Comment author: Dr_Manhattan 26 July 2017 12:20:11PM 0 points [-]

Eh, no, apparently. Although the article is comforting.

Things tend to converge to the truth when market forces make it advantageous. This is probably correct for Bayes.

Bayesian statistics as epistemic advantage

0 Dr_Manhattan 25 July 2017 05:07PM

Interesting Talking Machines episode quote about Bayesian stats being used at Bletchley and GCHQ (its successor). Seems like they held on to a possibly significant advantage (crypto ppl would be better to comment on this) for years, owing largely to Turing. (The rest of the episode is about AI safety and also interesting.)

Source:

http://www.thetalkingmachines.com/blog/2016/2/26/ai-safety-and-the-legacy-of-bletchley-park

GCHQ in the ’70s, we thought of ourselves as completely Bayesian statisticians. All our data analysis was completely Bayesian, and that was a direct inheritance from Alan Turing. I’m not sure this has ever really been published, but Turing, almost as a sideline during his cryptoanalytic work, reinvented Bayesian statistics for himself. The work against Enigma and other German ciphers was fully Bayesian. …

Bayesian statistics was an extreme minority discipline in the ’70s. In academia, I only really know of two people who were working majorly in the field, Jimmy Savage … in the States and Dennis Lindley in Britain. And they were regarded as fringe figures in the statistics community. It’s extremely different now. The reason is that Bayesian statistics works. So eventually truth win out. There are many, many problems where Bayesian methods are obviously the right thing to do. But in the ’70s we understood that already in Britain in the classified environment.

 

Transcription Source:

https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2017/07/25/bayesian-methods-at-bletchley-park/

 

 

MILA gets a grant for AI safety research

9 Dr_Manhattan 21 July 2017 03:34PM

http://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-catastrophic-risks/potential-risks-advanced-artificial-intelligence/montreal-institute-learning-algorithms-ai-safety-research

The really good news is that Yoshua Bengio is leading this (he is extremely credible in modern AI/deep learning world), and this is a pretty large change of mind for him. When I spoke to him at a conference 3 years ago he was pretty dismissive of the whole issue; this year's FLI conference seems to have changed his mind (kudos to them)

Of course huge props to OpenPhil for pursuing this

Comment author: cousin_it 12 July 2017 10:50:32AM *  2 points [-]

I think the point of reading is finding interesting ideas. For that purpose it's great. But trying to improve your life by reading usually leads to frustration and guilt. It feels liberating to let go of that notion and just read for the sake of reading. Better to spend your "improvement fuel" on other things, like joining targeted activities with other people.

Comment author: Dr_Manhattan 13 July 2017 02:55:15PM *  1 point [-]

A lot of what I consider "self-improvement literature" is not of the "do hard changes on yourself" kind.

  • Much value can be derived by learning recipes for doing things (e.g. negotiation, weight loss, marksmanship)

  • Also much value is derived from gaining alternative lenses on things that while being more than skin-deep do not involve the kind of hard personality changes you're objecting to (Frankl's book on meaning had some of that effect on me)

Comment author: cousin_it 07 July 2017 08:37:16PM 0 points [-]

That probably wouldn't work well for me, because I want to interact with people while learning. But still, which courses would you recommend?

Comment author: Dr_Manhattan 07 July 2017 08:46:49PM 0 points [-]

Discussion forums have gotten pretty good, so you can have some interaction. What do you want to learn?

Comment author: Dr_Manhattan 07 July 2017 08:33:56PM 0 points [-]

And now you can take all the classes you want without leaving your room! (I got freakishly much value from this I think. I also occasionally pay $50 to get a certificate and it's well worth the money in motivation)

View more: Next