Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.
As of an hour ago, I had not yet heard of the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk.
Luke announced it to Less Wrong, as The University of Cambridge announced it to the world, back in April:
Good people involved so far, but the expected output depends hugely on who they pick to run the thing.
CSER is scheduled to launch next year.
Here is a small selection of CSER press coverage from the last two days:
Google News: All 119 news sources...
Here's an excerpt from one quite typical story appearing in tech-tabloid theregister.co.uk today:
Boffins at Cambridge University want to set up a new centre to determine what humankind will do when ultra-intelligent machines like the Terminator or HAL pose "extinction-level" risks to our species.
A philosopher, a scientist and a software engineer are proposing the creation of a Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER) to analyse the ultimate risks to the future of mankind - including bio- and nanotech, extreme climate change, nuclear war and artificial intelligence.
Apart from the frequent portrayal of evil - or just misguidedly deadly - AI in science fiction, actual real scientists have also theorised that super-intelligent machines could be a danger to the human race.
Jaan Tallinn, the former software engineer who was one of the founders of Skype, has campaigned for serious discussion of the ethical and safety aspects of artificial general intelligence (AGI).
Tallinn has said that he sometimes feels he is more likely to die from an AI accident than from cancer or heart disease, CSER co-founder and philosopher Huw Price said.
In 1965, Irving John ‘Jack’ Good sat down and wrote a paper for New Scientist called Speculations concerning the first ultra-intelligent machine. Good, a Cambridge-trained mathematician, Bletchley Park cryptographer, pioneering computer scientist and friend of Alan Turing, wrote that in the near future an ultra-intelligent machine would be built. [...]
Edit: Dangerously misleading on one crucial point.
This started out as a short reply to the Less Wrong post Minimum Viable Workout Routine. Unfortunately I was unable to summarise my points sufficiently, so this reply grew into a post of it's own. I realize that the following is a bit rude to the original poster, and I apologize. Minimum Viable Workout Routine seems to be backed solely by anecdotal personal experience. The majority of the post, which addresses strength training seems decent, and not obviously wrong. However, the following paragraph is dangerously wrong:
A note about cardio: Cardiovascular capacity (V02 max) has shown a high degree of correlation to all cause mortality. Why aren't I recommending cardio? Because the only way to increase V02 max is with high intensity exercise. Between high intensity weight lifting and high intensity cardio, high intensity weightlifting easily wins for a newbie. A newbie, especially a significantly out of shape one, will not be capable of a level of cardio exertion that results in a significant adaptation. This can result in a lot of effort with very little in the way of improvement. This is soul-destroyingly frustrating.
Leaving this uncontested could be dangerous to your health. As we shall see, cardiovascular capacity is indeed important to survival and longevity. It is also quite easily trainable, it needs not be soul crushingly frustrating, and it should not be overlooked.
A couple of cool findings from the physiology of exercise:
Instead of having me trying to convince you, we'll take a look at the science, and see what we find.
You can assume with reasonable confidence that the findings are valid, well-corroborated, and furthermore, the findings quoted in this post have been found to apply to the general population, to the untrained, the athlete, the elderly, and the ill, even though I'm only able to present here a selection of these results.
Human physiology, and its response to exercise is surprisingly stable across genders, race, age and physical fitness. What works for the well trained athlete will also work for the utter newbie, the obese, and patients with heart disease.
Strength training is also important to health, increases in maximal strength of the large muscle groups tends to cause large increases in endurance, as measured in time to exhaustion. Why? Because if your muscles have to work slightly less hard at each movement, relative to the one repetition maximum of the muscle, you can work at moderate to high intensities for much longer.
So, let's first see that a brief strength training intervention can dramatically increase endurance:
Purpose: The present study investigated the effect of maximal strength training on running economy (RE) at 70% of maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) and time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic speed (MAS). Responses in one repetition maximum (1RM) and rate of force development (RFD) in half-squats, maximal oxygen consumption, RE, and time to exhaustion at MAS were examined.
Methods: Seventeen well-trained (nine male and eight female) runners were randomly assigned into either an intervention or a control group. The intervention group (four males and four females) performed half-squats, four sets of four repetitions maximum, three times per week for 8 wk, as a supplement to their normal endurance training. The control group continued their normal endurance training during the same period.
Results: The intervention manifested significant improvements in 1RM (33.2%), RFD (26.0%), RE (5.0%), and time to exhaustion at MAS (21.3%). No changes were found in VO2max or body weight. The control group exhibited no changes from pre to post values in any of the parameters.
Conclusion: Maximal strength training for 8 wk improved RE and increased time to exhaustion at MAS among well trained, long-distance runners, without change in maximal oxygen uptake or body weight
So a maximal strength training exercise of maybe 10 minutes, 3 times per week, for eight weeks, resulted in an increase in time to exhaustion of ~20% in well trained runners. So increases in strength can lead to large gains in endurance.
Cool, because endurance training is important. Endurance training makes you die less often, on average:
Exercise capacity is known to be an
important prognostic factor in patients with cardiovascular disease, but it is uncertain whether it predicts
mortality equally well among healthy persons. There
is also uncertainty regarding the predictive power of
exercise capacity relative to other clinical and exercise test variables.
Methods: We studied a total of 6213 consecutive
men referred for treadmill exercise testing for clinical
reasons during a mean (±SD) of 6.2±3.7 years of follow-up. Subjects were classified into two groups: 3679
had an abnormal exercise-test result or a history of
cardiovascular disease, or both, and 2534 had a normal exercise-test result and no history of cardiovascular disease. Overall mortality was the end point.
Results: There were a total of 1256 deaths during the
follow-up period, resulting in an average annual mortality of 2.6 percent. Men who died were older than
those who survived and had a lower maximal heart
rate, lower maximal systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and lower exercise capacity. After adjustment for
age, the peak exercise capacity measured in metabolic
equivalents (MET) was the strongest predictor of the
risk of death among both normal subjects and those
with cardiovascular disease. Absolute peak exercise capacity was a stronger predictor of the risk of death than
the percentage of the age-predicted value achieved,
and there was no interaction between the use or nonuse of beta-blockade and the predictive power of exercise capacity. Each 1-MET increase in exercise capacity
conferred a 12 percent improvement in survival.
Conclusions: Exercise capacity is a more powerful
predictor of mortality among men than other established risk factors for cardiovascular disease. (N Engl
J Med 2002;346:793-801.)
If you want to live long and prosper, you should train your body, most importantly your heart, to be able to work hard when you can. So that it can work hard for you when it must fight for your life. With that, let us have a look at endurance training in the elderly:
Each 60-minute training session included four repetitions of exercise at approximately 85% to 95% of maximal heart rate separated by 4-minute rest periods. The control group was encouraged to perform no additive strength or endurance training during the study period. Maximal oxygen consumption increased significantly (p < .05) (13.2%) in the TG compared to the CG. Walking economy and maximal walking speed were unchanged after the training intervention. This training study demonstrates that high-intensity endurance training significantly improves VO2 max in older adults.
Why is this interesting? Well, it seems that old people respond the same to vigorous exercise, as do young people.
But! They tend to do less of it, and consequently they gradually suffer worse health. I'm oversimplifying, but there is a causal path from physical inactivity with old age, (not because of old age) which leads to deterioration of health which leads to death. If you are reaching retirement age, or you know people who are, try to get them to move their butts before it's too late. And don't stop moving. Don't stop moving even if you suffer heart failure. Let's have a look at the effects of vigorous training in patients with heart disease:
This study sought to study the effect of high intensity aerobic interval endurance training on peak stroke volume and maximal strength training on mechanical efficiency in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients. 8 CAD patients (age 61.4 ± 3.7 years) trained 30 interval training sessions with 4 × 4 min intervals at 85-95% of peak heart rate while 10 CAD patients (age 66.5 ± 5.5 years) trained 24 sessions of maximal horizontal leg press.
In the interval training group peak stroke volume increased significantly by 23% from 94.1 ± 23.0 mL · beat (-1) to 115.8 ± 22.4 mL · beat (-1) (p<0.05). Peak oxygen uptake increased significantly by 17% from 27.2 ± 4.5 mL · kg (-1) · min (-1) to 31.8 ± 5.0 mL · kg (-1) min (-1) (p<0.05) in the same group. In contrast, there was no such exercise training-induced change in peak stroke volume or peak oxygen uptake in the maximal strength training group, despite a 35% improvement in sub maximal walking performance.
So this is what heart patients get in return for sixteen minutes, three times a week for two and a half months. If you're still breathing, and able to move by your own power, you are capable of the level of cardio exertion that leads to significant adaptation. You don't necessarily have to run fast, you just need to be able to get your heart rate to 85-95% of your maximum heart rate, repeatedly. For a CAD patient or an overweight person, this could mean a brisk walk. If you're out of shape, you don't have to fly across the terrain at amazing speed for your heart to get all excited.
How, exactly, does endurance training keep people healthy and alive?
Repeated intervals of brief, but high intensity endurace training causes increased stroke volume of the heart, when working at peak capacity. This carries over into the resting state, and lowers your resting pulse, your blood pressure, increases your maximal oxygen uptake, increases your working capacity when healthy, makes you less likely to get ill. If you get ill, your heart will be better at keeping you alive.
Should you trust my opinion? I've only taken a single university course in exercise physiology. You should not trust my opinion, and this is not professional advice. But my opinion is backed up with well-corroborated scientific findings, and you should probably trust those.
The course i took was excellent. The teaching professors were were former national team coaches, they have applied their research to great effect on healthy, untrained students, CAD patients, COPD patients, youth athletes, elite athletes and billion dollar soccer teams.
Pursuing a regime of maximal strength training and high intensity interval training, you should see evident and mutually reinforcing gains in strength and endurance, and you'll not stop seeing benefits, even at the level of 100 million dollar soccer players. (Endurance and Strength Training for Soccer Players)
An final anecdote of my own:
I used to find physical exercise dis-congruent with my geek identity, I found it boring, painful, useless. Learning the very basics of exercise physiology, along with some nerdy details makes working out seem important. It helps to know why I'm doing it, I know what the expected effects are, and the expected sizes of the effects, how to avoid training fatigue, track my heart rate, track my progress, and on the whole, see that I'm on track to results like those mentioned in the studies above. I find it fun to try and figure out what is happening, and approach working out as something of a puzzle to be solved. Exercise, or the lack of it, is an experiment in health.
Less Wrong used to like Bitcoin before it was cool. Monthly threads popped up around the same time a pricing bubble brought mainstream attention last year. When the bubble popped, and price continued to deflate, discussion on this site stopped entirely. Was there a change of sign in the social status of the topic, is the topic fully explored, or has there simply happened nothing of interest over the last year?
If you are not familiar with Bitcoin, here is one intro I happen to like.
Kaj Sotala lists a number of previous threads on the topic:
Less Wrong seems like a good place to discuss recent developments, if one does not want to suffer the inanity of the officially unofficial forum. If you are not longer interested in Bitcoin, perhaps send your remaining balance to the Singularity Institute?
A mundane cause for a surprising result. Consider this unconfirmed for now, however unsurprising it sounds.
According to sources familiar with the experiment, the 60 nanoseconds discrepancy appears to come from a bad connection between a fiber optic cable that connects to the GPS receiver used to correct the timing of the neutrinos' flight and an electronic card in a computer. After tightening the connection and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fiber, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed. Since this time is subtracted from the overall time of flight, it appears to explain the early arrival of the neutrinos.
New data, however, will be needed to confirm this hypothesis.
Journalist David McRaney has very recently published a popular book on human rationality. The book, You Are Not So Smart, is currently the 3rd best selling book in Nonfiction/Philosophy on Amazon.com after less than a week on the market. (Eighth best selling book in Nonfiction/Education)
The tag-line of the project is: "A celebration of self-delusion." As such the book seems less an attempt at giving advice on how to act and decide, than an attempt to reveal, chapter by chapter, the folly of common sense.
Topics include: Hindsight Bias, Confirmation bias, The Sunk Cost Fallacy, Anchoring Effect, The Illusion of Transparency, The Just World Fallacy, Representativeness Heuristic, The Perils of Introspection, The Dunning-Kruger Effect, The Monty Hall Problem, The Bystander Effect, Placebo Buttons, Groupthink, Conformity, Social Loafing, Helplessness, Cults, Change Blindness, Self-Fulfilling Prophecies, Self Handicapping, Availability Heuristic, Self-Serving Bias, The Ultimatum Game, Inattentional Blindness.
These are topics we enjoy learning about, pride ourself in knowing a lot about, and, we profess, we would want more people to know about. A popular book on this subject is now out. This sounds like a good thing.
I will note that the blog features at least one direct quote from LessWrong.
We always know what we mean by our words, and so we expect others to know it too. Reading our own writing, the intended interpretation falls easily into place, guided by our knowledge of what we really meant. It’s hard to empathise with someone who must interpret blindly, guided only by the words.
- Eliezer Yudowsky from Lesswrong.com
One one hand, You Are Not So Smart could bee a boon to Eliezer's popular rationality book by priming the market. His writings on a given topic have rarely been described as redundant. On the other hand, it seems to me that this book closely covers a number of topics, seemingly in a similar style to the treatments that were published on this site and Overcoming Bias. Intended to be published in book form at a later date. I will try to refrain from speculation here.
Sample blook chapters from YouAreNotSoSmart:
I'll save the rest of my review until I have actually read the book.
In the meantime I would like to know your thoughts on this project.
View more: Next