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

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 02 July 2015 09:22:34PM 3 points [-]

You take the probability of A not happening and multiply by the probability of B not happening. That gives you P(not A and not B). Then subtract that from 1. The probability of at least one of two events happening is just one minus the probability of neither happening.

In your example of 23% and 48%, the probability of getting at least one is

1 - (1-0.23)*(1-0.48) = 0.60.

Comment author: VincentYu 03 July 2015 01:20:06AM 2 points [-]

You take the probability of A not happening and multiply by the probability of B not happening. That gives you P(not A and not B).

Only if A and B are independent.

Comment author: Gram_Stone 12 March 2015 04:55:29AM 0 points [-]

Is the term 'expected value' interchangeable with the term 'expected utility?'

Comment author: VincentYu 10 June 2015 01:50:22AM 1 point [-]

No. "Expected value" refers to the expectation of a variable under a probability distribution, whereas "expected utility" refers specifically to the expectation of a utility function under a probability distribution. That is, expected utility is a specific instantiation of an expected value; expected value is more general than expected utility and can refer to things other than utility.

The importance of this distinction often arises when considering the utility of large sums of money: a person may well decline a deal or gamble with positive expected value (of money) because the expected utility can be negative (for example, see the St. Petersburg paradox).

Comment author: emr 06 March 2015 03:11:21PM *  1 point [-]

Yes! I think this is it. The wikipedia article links to these ray diagrams, which I found helpful (particularly the fourth picture).

I suspected it had to do with an overlap in the penumbra, or the "fuzzy edges", of the shadow, but I kept getting confused because the observation isn't what you would expect, if you think of the penumbra as two separate pictures that you're simply "adding together" as they overlap.

Comment author: VincentYu 10 June 2015 01:35:55AM 1 point [-]

See also this highly-upvoted question on the Physics Stack Exchange, which deals with your question.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 05 June 2015 10:48:34PM *  6 points [-]

I have my genome data from both 23andMe and BGI. I am wondering what to make of it. BGI reports about thirty times as many SNPs as 23andMe. 23andMe: 598897, BGI: 19695817.

Of these, 475801 are reported by both. I looked to see how well they agree with each other, and summarised the results as a count, for each occurring pair of results, of how often that pair occurred. In descending numerical order, and classifying them by type of match or mismatch, this is what I get. (No individual SNPs are identified here.)

87565 CC CC
86952 GG GG
75289 TT TT
75087 AA AA
31069 CT CT
30817 AG GA
27542 CT TC
27484 AG AG
6818 AC CA
6767 GT GT
6373 AC AC
6297 GT TG
270 CG GC
251 CG CG
146 AT TA
138 AT AT
420 C C
402 G G
336 A A
291 T T
582 CT --
576 AG --
426 CC --
399 GG --
348 -- CC
340 -- GG
330 TT --
316 AA --
270 -- AA
240 -- TT
139 GT --
136 AC --
123 -- GA
121 -- CT
113 -- TG
110 -- TC
104 -- GT
101 -- CA
93 -- AC
86 -- AG
26 -- --
5 -- AT
4 CG --
4 -- GC
3 -- TA
2 AT --
2 -- CG
14 C --
13 T --
9 G --
8 -- C
7 A --
5 -- G
2 -- T
51 CC CT
33 AG AA
32 AG GG
31 GG GA
31 CT TT
30 CT CC
25 TT TC
23 AA AG
18 GG AG
15 CC TC
15 AA GA
11 TT TG
11 CC CA
9 TT GT
9 TT CT
9 AC AA
7 CC AC
7 AC CC
6 GT TT
6 GT GG
6 GG GT
6 AA AC
5 TT CC
4 GG AA
4 CC CG
4 AA CA
3 CG CC
3 CC TT
3 AT TT
2 TT TA
1 TT GA
1 GG TG
1 GG GC
1 GG CG
1 GG CC
1 CG GG
1 CC GC
1 CC AA
1 AT AA
1 AA GG
1 G A

The first five lines make sense: the two analyses agree for a large proportion of the SNPs. The sixth shows 23andMe reading AG when BGI reads GA 30817 times. It looks like 23andMe are reporting unequal pairs in alphabetical order, while BGI are reporting them in random order. Taking these as matches, the great majority of SNPs reported by both are reported identically.

Then there are a few thousand SNPs that one or other analysis (in 26 cases, both) list in their output but don't report anything for. What causes this?

Finally, there are a few hundred that the two analyses just give different results for. For most of these, one reports homozygosity for an allele present in the other, but in a few cases the reports are completely different, e.g. one occurrence of TT/GA.

Is this amount of mismatch typical for such analyses?

Comment author: VincentYu 06 June 2015 06:33:35AM *  2 points [-]

Interesting. Thanks for posting this!

I received exactly the same number of SNPs from BGI, so it looks like our data were processed under the same pipeline. I've found three people who have publicly posted their BGI data: two at the Personal Genome Project (hu2FEC01 and hu41F03B, each with 5,095,048 SNPs), and one on a personal website (with 18,217,058 SNPs).

Then there are a few thousand SNPs that one or other analysis (in 26 cases, both) list in their output but don't report anything for. What causes this?

The double dashes are no calls. 23andme reports on a set list of SNPs, and instead of omitting an SNP when they can't confidently determine the genotype, they indicate this with a double dash.

Is this amount of mismatch typical for such analyses?

This seems normal considering the error rates from 23andme that others have been reporting (example). I don't know about BGI's error rates.

I think it might be possible to accurately guess the actual genotypes for some of the mismatches by imputing the genotypes with something like Impute2 (for each mismatched SNP, leave it out and impute it using the nearby SNPs). This will take many hours of work, though, and you might as well phase and impute across the whole genome if you have the time, interest, and processing power to do so (I've been meaning to try this out to learn more about how these things work).

Comment author: gwern 14 May 2015 09:35:45PM *  1 point [-]

My currently unfilled requests on /r/scholar:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Scholar/comments/29hi38/request_2_dissertations_on_online_learning/ :

  1. Santo, S.A.: "Virtual learning, personality, and learning styles". Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, Humanities & Social Sciences, 62, pp. 137 (2001) (slides: http://sloanconsortium.org/conference/proceedings/1999/pdf/99_santo.pdf )
  2. Zobdeh-Asadi, S.: "Differences in personality factors and learners' preference for traditional versus online education". Dissertation Abstract International Section A: Humanities & Social Sciences, 65(2-A), pp. 436 (2004)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Scholar/comments/2xlrv5/article_modafinil_the_unique_properties_of_a_new/ :

https://www.reddit.com/r/Scholar/comments/2xpgig/article_is_lithium_a_neuroprotective_agent/ :

https://www.reddit.com/r/Scholar/comments/32z239/can_transcranial_direct_current_stimulation/ :

https://www.reddit.com/r/Scholar/comments/34nlq5/studying_with_music_is_the_irrelevant_speech/

  • Book chapter: Kantner, J. (2009). "Studying with music: Is the irrelevant speech effect relevant?". In M. R. Kelley (Ed.), Applied memory (pp. 19-40). Hauppauge, NY US: Nova Science Publishers.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Scholar/comments/34nsug/article_the_effect_of_music_as_a_distraction_on/ :

https://www.reddit.com/r/Scholar/comments/352qyo/article_gwas_and_metaanalysis_in_aginglongevity/ :

Comment author: VincentYu 06 June 2015 05:13:20AM 1 point [-]

ILL couldn't get Schretlen et al. Can try again once the paper is included in the print journal, but I'd recommend just asking the authors for a copy.

Comment author: gwern 14 May 2015 09:35:45PM *  1 point [-]

My currently unfilled requests on /r/scholar:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Scholar/comments/29hi38/request_2_dissertations_on_online_learning/ :

  1. Santo, S.A.: "Virtual learning, personality, and learning styles". Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, Humanities & Social Sciences, 62, pp. 137 (2001) (slides: http://sloanconsortium.org/conference/proceedings/1999/pdf/99_santo.pdf )
  2. Zobdeh-Asadi, S.: "Differences in personality factors and learners' preference for traditional versus online education". Dissertation Abstract International Section A: Humanities & Social Sciences, 65(2-A), pp. 436 (2004)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Scholar/comments/2xlrv5/article_modafinil_the_unique_properties_of_a_new/ :

https://www.reddit.com/r/Scholar/comments/2xpgig/article_is_lithium_a_neuroprotective_agent/ :

https://www.reddit.com/r/Scholar/comments/32z239/can_transcranial_direct_current_stimulation/ :

https://www.reddit.com/r/Scholar/comments/34nlq5/studying_with_music_is_the_irrelevant_speech/

  • Book chapter: Kantner, J. (2009). "Studying with music: Is the irrelevant speech effect relevant?". In M. R. Kelley (Ed.), Applied memory (pp. 19-40). Hauppauge, NY US: Nova Science Publishers.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Scholar/comments/34nsug/article_the_effect_of_music_as_a_distraction_on/ :

https://www.reddit.com/r/Scholar/comments/352qyo/article_gwas_and_metaanalysis_in_aginglongevity/ :

Comment author: VincentYu 23 May 2015 01:54:44AM 3 points [-]

I'm still waiting for Schretlen et al.

Comment author: VincentYu 21 May 2015 07:18:56AM 0 points [-]

Dale and Krueger's paper was revised and published in the Journal of Human Resources under the new title "Estimating the effects of college characteristics over the career using administrative earnings data".

Comment author: torekp 17 May 2015 12:34:56AM 1 point [-]

Good question, thanks. Yes, I do think that "mind uploading", suitably loosely defined, will be available first on a non-WBE platform. I'm assuming that human-level AGI relatively quickly becomes superhuman-level, to the point where imitating the behavior of a specific individual becomes a possibility.

Comment author: VincentYu 17 May 2015 04:15:28AM 0 points [-]

I see. In GAZP vs. GLUT, Eliezer argues that the only way to feasibly create a perfect imitation of a specific human brain is to do computations that correspond in some way to the functional roles behind mental states, which will produce identical conscious experiences according to functionalism.

Comment author: torekp 15 May 2015 12:51:45PM *  1 point [-]

Hold the holy water, and please stop attributing views to me I don't hold and didn't imply. There's no dichotomy. "Subjective" can just mean "in your head"; that's consistent with there being objective facts about it.

Referring to the analogy, Gasoline Gal at least doesn't care what kind of metal the engine is made from, so if we can at least agree that computations and information processes are the important thing, then it's just a question of figuring out which ones are important / simulating them as closely as possible just to be sure.

I lean heavily toward the view that information processes are the important thing. That's why I made Gasoline Gal not care about the metals. Note, information processes are algorithms, not just functions. For uploading, that means whole brain emulation. In my underinformed opinion, whole brain emulation is not the Way to AGI if you just want AGI. At some point, then, AGI will be available while WBE systems will be way behind; and so, uploaders will at least temporarily face a deeply serious choice on this issue.

Comment author: VincentYu 16 May 2015 09:07:41AM *  1 point [-]

For uploading, that means whole brain emulation. In my underinformed opinion, whole brain emulation is not the Way to AGI if you just want AGI. At some point, then, AGI will be available while WBE systems will be way behind; and so, uploaders will at least temporarily face a deeply serious choice on this issue.

Are you suggesting that mind uploading to a non-WBE platform will be available before WBE? I don't think this is a common belief; uploading almost exclusively refers to WBE. See, for instance, Sandberg and Bostrom (2008), who don't distinguish between WBE and uploading:

Whole brain emulation, often informally called “uploading” or “downloading”, has been the subject of much science fiction and also some preliminary studies.

I think it is indeed a common belief that AGI may come before WBE, but as far as I know, it is not commonly believed that AGI will provide an alternative route to WBE, because human minds will likely not be feasibly translatable to the AGI architectures that we come up with.

Comment author: Clarity 15 May 2015 07:43:00AM 2 points [-]

I'm interested in reviewing the data on disabling diseases by loss of income and quality of life after reading the following:

'Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) has been classified by the World Health Organization as one of the top 10 most disabling diseases with respect to loss of income and quality of life [4]. ... [4] National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health. Common mental health disorders, identification and pathways to care. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2011.'

-http://www.racgp.org.au/afp/2013/september/ocd/#4

The outline for the 2011 reference is available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK92266/

I've tried combining the phrases of interest like quality of life and disability with the title of the 2011 work and saw no relevant results.

Any advice on how to proceed, alternative strategies or directions to other sources and/or data?

Comment author: VincentYu 16 May 2015 08:46:01AM *  2 points [-]

The relevant paragraph is in Section 2.2.5:

OCD is ranked by the WHO in the top ten of the most disabling illnesses by lost income and decreased quality of life (Bobes et al., 2001). The severity of OCD differs markedly from one person to another. While some people may be able to hide their OCD from their own family, the disorder may have a major negative impact on social relationships leading to frequent family and marital discord or dissatisfaction, separation or divorce (Koran, 2000). It also interferes with leisure activities (Antony et al., 1998) and with a person’s ability to study or work, leading to diminished educational and/or occupational attainment and unemployment (Koran, 2000; Leon et al., 1995). The social cost (that is the person’s inability to fully function in society) has been estimated as US$5.9 billion in 1990, or 70.4% of the total economic cost of OCD (DuPont et al., 1995).

Following the Bobes et al. citation yields:

Obsessive-compulsive disorder is the fourth most common psychiatric disorder, occurring in 2–3% of the U.S. population [14]. Furthermore, OCD is a chronic and disabling illness that impacts negatively on the academic, occupational, social, and family function of patients [11, 12, 17]. This impact carries over onto their families, friends, and society [12]. Indeed, OCD ranks tenth in the World Bank’s and WHO’s ten leading causes of disability and, in the case of women aged 15–44 years, OCD occupies the fifth position [22]. In spite of this situation, to our knowledge data on quality of life and disability has scarcely been reported in OCD patients.

Reference 22 is to "WHO Fact Sheet no. 217", which no longer exists. Luckily, the Wayback Machine has a copy. The relevant point:

It is also of great significance that 5 of the 10 leading causes of disability worldwide (major depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, alcohol use, obsessive compulsive disorders) are mental problems. They are as relevant in developing countries as they are in industrialised societies

Unfortunately, there is no citation and it does not precisely match Bobes et al's claims. Neither Bobes et al. nor the WHO fact sheet refers to lost income, so the reference to that in the original claim is wholly unsubstantiated by these citations.

View more: Next