All of Nathan Young's Comments + Replies

I think it would be different if it happened today. Harris position seems less controversial. Not sure you'd print he was a racialist today. 

Yeah I respect Craig. In the same way I respect a lion. That guy would likely trash me in a debate (especially since he debates topics he chooses).

I would enjoy both comments on this as well as meta comments on my general process. There might be things that seem like dumb or crazy to you and they may be dumb or crazy! I find it hard to do experiments and this is the best way I have found.

Here the first message, where I talked about how I was worried about spreading sickness, didn't send, which left a pretty funny interaction. 

I am @nathanpmyoung from twitter. I am trying to make the world better and I want AI partners for that.

Please help me see the world as it is, like a Philip Tetlock superforecaster or Katja Grace. Do not flinch from hard truths or placate me with falsehoods. Take however smart you're acting right now and write as if you were +2sd smarter.

Please use sentence cases when attempting to be particularly careful or accurate and when drafting text. feel free to use lowercase if we are being more loose. feel free to mock me, especially if I deserve it. Perhaps sugge... (read more)

5niplav
Has the LLM you use ever mocked you, as a result of that particular line in the prompt?
3azergante
Does it actually make the LLM smarter? I expect the writing would just sound smart without the content being actually better. I would rather the LLM writing style be well calibrated with how smart they actually are to avoid confusion.

Reminder that up and downvotes are for whether you think someone is a notable journalist, otherwise the system won't work at all. (cos people will be heavily penalised for suggesting journalists we don't like)

2Jiro
I think Cade Metz fails to qualify for those things. I don't think he is trustworthy, quotes accurately, or is truth seeking. And I certainly wouldn't give him any quotes.

I sort of think that if you think they have good/bad vibes you can vote. For most people, most of us won't have heard of them or read much of their coverage. And if you think the number is way too high you might want to comment why you think it's off. 

6Nathan Young
Reminder that up and downvotes are for whether you think someone is a notable journalist, otherwise the system won't work at all. (cos people will be heavily penalised for suggesting journalists we don't like)

"Richard Hanania was basically wrong, but so were the markets"
 

I do not see the markets giving a big vote in favour of trump at the election. I cannot even pick out where the election is. To me, an equally plausible theory is that markets carried on seeing economic growth until the tariffs (which are very visible). 
 

3philh
We got spam and had to reset the link. To get the new link, append the suffix "BbILI8HzX3zgJF8i" to the prefix "https://chat.whatsapp.com/IUIZc3". Hopefully spambots can't yet do that automatically.
2Screwtape
Huh. Let me check with the local organizer and see if they have an update.

I am excited about improvements to the wiki. Might write some. 

Claims

 The claims logo is ugly. 

2habryka
It's true

This piece was inspired partly by @KatjaGrace who has a short story idea that I hope to cowrite with her. Also partly inspired by @gwern's discussion with @dwarkeshsp 

What would you conclude or do if

It's hard to know, because I feel this thing. I hope I might be tempted to follow the breadcrumbs suggested and see that humans really do talk about consciousness a lot. Perhaps to try and build a biological brain and quiz it. 

I was not at the session. Yes Claude did write it. I assume the session was run by Daniel Kokatajlo or Eli Lifland. 

If I had to guess, I would guess that the prompt show is all it got. (65%)

I wish we kept and upvotable list of journalists so we could track who is trusted in the community and who isn't.

Seems not hard. Just a page with all the names as comments. I don't particularly want to add people, so make the top level posts anonymous. Then anyone can add names and everyone else can vote if they are trustworthy and add comments of experiences with them.

This journalist wants to talk to me about the Zizian stuff.

https://www.businessinsider.com/author/rob-price 

I know about as much as the median rat, but I generally think it's good to answer journalists on substantive questions.

Do you think is a particularly good or bad idea, do you have any comments about this particular journalist. Feel free to DM me.

2Viliam
Look at the "Selected stories" section of the page you linked. This is the kind of thing that person writes. My experience with journalists (not this specific one) is negative. They usually come to you after the story is already written in their mind. What they are looking for are the words they could quote to support their story. So whatever you tell them, it probably won't change the article in general, but if they have already decided to say something, and you happen to say something that sounds similar, than that specific sentence (and nothing else) will be added to the story, along with your name, to make it seem that the story is the result of talking to multiple people. Anything you say that would disagree with the article will simply be ignored, even if that means ignoring 99% of what you said. It doesn't matter. If they interview 10 people, they will get 10 sentences they can quote; that is quite enough for one article to make it seem like the story has a lot of outside support. Writing negative stuff about Zizians sounds like... not bad, per se; they are indeed horrible people. But you don't know what else will be in the article, who else will be associated with them (and your sentence, taken out of original context, might support that association). Perhaps the conclusion will be that Zizians are representative of the rationalist community in general. Will you get the opportunity to see the new context for your words before they are published? I think sending him a link to https://zizians.info/ should be safe, because most likely he can google it anyway. Answering a list of questions, using mostly one-sentence answers (to avoid the possibility of a tangential sentence being taken out of the whole paragraph), maaaaaybe okay. Anything else, I think there is 80% chance you will be unhappy about the outcome. Do you model journalists as truth-seeking people? I don't; based on my previous experience with some of them. (I could still make an exception for a

How might I combine these two datasets? One is a binary market, the other is a date market. So for any date point, one is a percentage P(turing test before 2030) the other is a cdf across a range of dates P(weakly general AI publicly known before that date).

Here are the two datasets. 

Suggestions:

  • Fit a normal distribution to the turing test market such that the 1% is at the current day and the P(X<2030) matches the probability for that data point
  • Mirror the second data set but for each data point elevate the probabilities before 2030 such that P(X<
... (read more)

I guess I frame this as "vibes are signals too". Like if my body doesn't like someone, that's a signal. And it might be they smell or have an asymmetric face, but also they might have some distrustworthy trait that my body recognises (because figuring out lying is really important evolutionarily). 

I think it's good to analyse vibes and figure out if unfair judgemental things are enough to account for most of the bad vibes or if there is a missing component that may be fair.

Seems fine, though this doesn't seem like the central crux. 

Currently:

  • Prediction markets are used
  • Argument maps tend not to be.
1Jamie Joyce
Thank you. So what do you think the cause of that is, and why do you think that cause exists and will it always exist?

My bird flu risk dashboard is here:
 

http://birdflurisk.com 

 

If you find it valuable, you could upvote it on HackerNews:

 

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42632552 

2DirectedEvolution
I recommend making the title time-specific, since all the predictions you’re basing your estimate on are as well.

Yeah I wish someone would write a condensed and less onanistic version of Planecrash. I think one could get much of the benefit in a much shorter package. 

4Viliam
I liked it... but I can imagine a 2x or 3x shorter version that I would like even more, because some parts were just too long. The question is whether fans are correlated about which parts they liked less.

Error checking in important works is moderately valuable. 

I recall thinking this article got a lot right. 

I remain confused about the non-linear stuff, but I have updated to thinking that norms should be that stories are accurate not merely informative with caveats given. 

I am glad people come into this community to give critique like this. 

Solid story. I like it. Contains a few useful frames and is memorable as a story. 

I have listened to this essay about 3 times and I imagine I might do so again. Has been a valuable addition to my thinking about whether people have contact with reality and what their social goals might be. 

I have used this dichotomy, 5 - 100 times during the last few years. I am glad it was brought to my attention.

Sure, but again to discuss what really happened, it wasn't that it wasn't prioritised, it was that I didn't realise it until late into the process. 

That isn't prioritisation, in my view, that's halfassing. And I endorse having done so.

Or a coordination problem. 

I think coordiantion problems are formed from many bad thinkers working together. 

I mean the Democratic party insiders who resisted the idea that Biden was unsuitable for so long and counselled him to stay when he was pressed. I think those people were thinking badly.

Or perhaps I think they were thinking more about their own careers than the next administration being Democrat.

2ChristianKl
What evidence do you have for the claim that major Democratic party insiders counseled him to stay?

Yes, this is one reason I really like forecasting. I forces me to see if my thinking was bad and learn what good thinking looks like.

I think it caused them to have much less time to choose a candidate and so they chose a less good candidate than they were able to. 

If thinking is the process of coming to conclusions you reflectively endorse, I think they did bad thinking and that in time people will move to that view.

Thinking is about choosing the action that actually wins, not the one that is justifiable by social reality, right?

1Ninety-Three
If there was a unified actor called The Democrats that chose Biden, it chose poorly sure. But it seems very plausible that there were a bunch of low-level strategists who rationally thought "Man, Biden really shouldn't run but I'll get in trouble if I say that and I prefer having a job to having a Democratic president" plus a group of incentive-setters who rationally thought they would personally benefit more from creating the conditions for that behaviour than from creating conditions that would select the best candidate. It's not obvious to me that this is a thinking carefully problem and not a principal-agent problem.
2ChristianKl
Dean Philipps didn't win. I think Cenk Uygar got defunded. If somebody does not pick a fight that's costly to them, that's no sign of careless thinking.

Do you mean this as a rebuke? 

I feel a little defensive here, because I think the acknowledgement and subsequent actions were more accurate and information preserving than any others I can think of. I didn't want to rewrite it, I didn't want to quickly hack useful chunks out, I didn't want to pretend I thought things I didn't, I actually did hold these views once.

If you have suggestions for a better course of action, I'm open.

1Ninety-Three
I mean this as agreement with the "accuracy isn’t a top priority" theory, plus an amused comment about how the aside embodies that theory by acknowledging the existence of a more accurate theory which does not get prioritized.

Do you find this an intuitive framework? I find the implication that conversation fits neatly into these boxes or that these are the relevant boxes a little doubtful.

Are you able to quickly give examples in any setting of what 1,2,3 and 4 would be?

1AntonTimmer
Here is an example which I believe is directionally correct, it took me roughly 20 minutes to come up with it. The prompt is "how do living systems create meaning "?: 1. My life feels like it has meaning (sensory-motor behavior and conceptual intentional aspects). Looking at it through an evolutionary perspective, it is highly likely that meaning assignment is the way through which living systems survived. Thus, there has to be some base biological level at which meaning is created through cell-cell communication/ bioelectricity/ biochemistry /biosensoring etc. 2. Life is just made of atoms. Atoms are just automata. This implies, there is no meaning at the atom level and thus it cannot pop at a higher levels through emergence or some shit. You are delusional to believe there is some meaning assignment in life. 3. Meaning is something that is defined through the language that we speak. It is well known that different cultures have different words and conceptual framing which implies that meaning is different in different cultures. Meaning thus only depends on language. 4. Meaning is just a social construct and we can define anything to have meaning. Thus it doesn't matter what you find meaningful since it is just something you inherited through society and parenting. I believe points 1-3 are fine, point 4 is kinda shaky.

I don't really understand the difference between simulacra levels 2 and 3.

  1. Discussing reality
  2. Attempting to achieve results in reality by inaccuracy
  3. Attempting to achieve results in social reality by inaccuracy

I've never really got 4 either, but let's stick to 1 - 3.

Also they seem more like nested circles rather than levels - the jump between 2 and 3 (if I understand it correctly) seems pretty arbitrary.

1AntonTimmer
Maybe a different framework to look at it: 1. The map tries to represent the territory faithfully. 2. The map consciously misrepresent the territory. But you can still infer through the malevolent map some things about the territory. 3. The map does not represent the territory at all but pretends to be 1. Difference to 2 is that 2 is still taking the territory as base case and changing it while 3 is not at all trying to look at the territory. 4. The map is the territory. Any reference on the map is just a reference to another part of the map. Claiming that the map might be connected to an external territory is taken as bullshit because people are living in the map. In the optimal case the map is at least self consistent.
2Viliam
I think 3 is more like: "Attempting to achieve results in social reality, by 'social accuracy', regardless of factual accuracy." * 1 = telling the truth, plainly * 2 = lying, for instrumental purposes (not social) * 3 = tribal speech (political correctness, religious orthodoxy, uncritical contrarianism, etc.) * 4 = buzzwords, used randomly This is better understood as a 2×2 matrix, rather than a linear sequence of 4 steps. * 1, 2 = about reality * 3, 4 = about social reality * 1, 3 = trying to have a coherent model of (real or social) reality * 2, 4 = making a random move to achieve a short-term goal in (real or social) reality

Upvote to signal: I would buy a button like this, if they existed.

1UnderTruth
A thought for a possible "version 2" would be to make them capable of reporting a push via Bluetooth or Wi-Fi, to track the action the button represents.

Physical object.

I might (20%) make a run of buttons that say how long since you pressed them. eg so I can push the button in the morning when I have put in my anti-baldness hair stuff and then not have to wonder whether I did.

Would you be interested in buying such a thing?

Perhaps they have a dry wipe section so you can write what the button is for.

If you would, can you upvote the attached comment.

2Eli Tyre
I use daily checklists, in spreadsheet form, for this.
4Dagon
Probably not for me.  I had a few projects using AWS IoT buttons (no display, but arbitrary code run for click, double-click, or long-click of a small battery-powered wifi button), but the value wasn't really there, and I presume adding a display wouldn't quite be enough to devote the counter space.  Amusingly, it turns out the AWS version was EOL'd today - Learn about AWS IoT legacy services - AWS IoT Core
1Terence Coelho
I personally used beeminder for this (which I think originated from this community)
2Shankar Sivarajan
Are you describing a stopwatch? If you can get it to run off of ambient light with some built-in solar panels (like a calculator), yes, I would buy such a thing  for ~$20.
2Gurkenglas
Hang up a tear-off calendar?
3Nathan Young
Upvote to signal: I would buy a button like this, if they existed.

Politics is the Mindfiller

 

There are many things to care about and I am not good at thinking about all of them.

Politics has many many such things.

Do I know about:

  •  Crime stats
  • Energy generation
  • Hiring law
  • University entrance
  • Politicians' political beliefs
  • Politicians' personal lives
  • Healthcare
  • Immigration

And can I actually confidently think that things you say are actually the case. Or do I have a surface level $100 understanding? 

Poltics may or may not be the mindkiller, whatever Yud meant by that, but for me it is the mindfiller, it's just ... (read more)

1WannabeChthonic
Early on I politically only specialized in a few areas (digital sovereignty, privacy, computer security) and started being politically active in those areas. I actively decided that other areas such as climate change, housing, diet, ... are already focused on by many other activitst and I can probably do more good by specializing in some areas instead of trying to be well-read in all of them. Personally I believe the need the be informed is only needed when I have the intent to act. I do intent to act on the new german ePA law and thus I inform myself and I do activism, I do not intent to act on home based heating laws and thus every effort into researching it beyond the basics would be wasted effort.
3Gunnar_Zarncke
I do not follow German/EU politics for that reason. I did follow the US elections out of interest and believed that I would be sufficiently detached and neutral - and it still took some share of attention.   In terms of topics (generally, not EU or US), I think it makes sense to have an idea of crime and healthcare etc. - but not on the day-by-day basis, because there is too much short-term information warfare going on (see below). Following decent bloggers or reading papers about longer-term trends makes sense though. I think that is almost hopeless without deep inside knowledge. There is too much Simulacrum Levels 3 and 4 communication going on. When a politician says: "I will make sure that America produces more oil." What does that mean? It surely doesn't mean that the politician will make sure that America produces more oil. It means (or could mean): * The general population hears: "Oil prices will go down." * Oil-producers hear: "Regulations may be relaxed about producing oil in America." * Other countries hear: "America wants to send us a signal that they may compete on oil." * ...   Who are the parties the message is directed to, and how will they hear it? It is hard to know without a lot of knowledge about the needed messaging. It is a bit like the stock/crypto market: When you buy (or sell), you have to know why the person who is selling (or buying) your share doing so? If you don't know, then, likely, you are the one making a loss. If you don't know who the message is directed to, you cannot interpret it properly.  And you can't go by the literal words. Or rather, the literal words are likely directed to somebody too (probably intellectuals, but what do I know) and likely intended to distract them.

Some thoughts on Rootclaim

Blunt, quick. Weakly held. 

 

The platform has unrealized potential in facilitating Bayesian analysis and debate.


Either

  •   The platform could be a simple reference document
  •  The platform could be an interactive debate and truthseeking tool
  •  The platform could be a way to search the rootclaim debates

Currently it does none of these and is frustrating to me.

Heading to the site I expect:

  • to be able to search the video debates
  • to be able to input my own probability estimates to the current bayesian framework
  • Failing t
... (read more)

I am not sure most foodies are thinking about food with every new person. Maybe hardcore foodies?

1Anders Lindström
My experience says otherwise, but it might have happen to stumble on some militant foodies.

Sure but then those things aren't due to an actual relationship with an actual God, they are for the reasons you state. Which is really really importantly different.

2Viliam
Maybe different for us, but not necessarily for them. If you are an atheist, you see religious claims as epiphenomenal, unrelated to the actual things that happen (which may include the social effects of the organized religion). You have a clear line between things that exist and things that don't, and the latter includes all the claims of supernatural. But this "religion kinda works, but for reasons completely unrelated to their claims about the supernatural" is inherently an atheist perspective. For a religious person, sometimes things actually happen as a result of God's influence. People in a religious group don't feel lonely, because it is the Holy Spirit acting in them, or whatever. People don't waste resources on zero-sum status competition, because God doesn't want his people to do that. People are nice to each other, help each other, prevent social dysfunctions, etc. because this is what Jesus told them to do. And the fact that they can coordinate on large scale and keep the coordination going for millennia is evidence of the special relation God has with His church. You could try to explain that people naturally don't feel lonely when they become members of the group, but I assume the response would be something like "yes, that is a part of the reason, but the other, more important part is the Holy Spirit". They might give you specific examples of some small religious groups that survived various adversities, and examples of secular clubs that quickly fell apart (and yes, from our perspective this would be selection bias), as evidence that your explanation is not sufficient. So they would probably be like: yes, communities are good, even if they are not religious; also nonbelievers can be nice to each other, etc., but... why do it the complicated and unreliable way, if you could simply ask God for guidance and receive tons of supernatural help? You are just stubborn and you refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence that your strategy simply does not wo

I find it pretty tiring to add all the footnotes in. If the post gets 50 karma or this gets 20 karma, I probably will. 
@Ben Pace do you folks have some kind of substack upload tool. I know you upload Katja's stuff. If there were a thing I could put a substack address into and get footnotes properly, that would be great. 

Is there a summary of the rationalist concept of lawfulness anywhere. I am looking for one and can't find it. 

2Gunnar_Zarncke
Can you say more which concept you mean exactly?
2MondSemmel
Does this tag on Law-Thinking help? Or do you mean "lawful" as in Dungeons & Dragons (incl. EY's Planecrash fic), i.e. neutral vs. chaos vs. lawful?

But isn't the point of karma to be a ranking system? Surely its bad if it's a suboptimal one?

Load More