All of woodside's Comments + Replies

woodside360

If I could convince Aubrey de Grey to cut off his beard it would increase everyones expected longevity more than any other accomplishment I'm capable of.

0VAuroch
I think his look (if his Wikipedia picture and the tiny images from a Google search) is probably not particularly harmful. It's well-positioned to signal Dignified Hippy, which is a group that tends to be skeptical of the general anti-deathist position, or for a general Respectable Elder, which is not wonderful but pretty decent for appealing to institutional-investor-type groups. I'm not familiar enough with his particular relevance to know whether that balance could be improved for what he actually does.
1RHollerith
His girlfriend, or one of his girlfriends (I'm not sure how many he had at the time) told me she thinks the beard is really hot.
Vaniver180

If I could convince Aubrey de Grey to cut off his beard it would increase everyones expected longevity more than any other accomplishment I'm capable of.

This I'm not actually sure about. I think the guru look might be a net positive in his particular situation.

127chaos
I wasn't familiar with the name, so I looked it up. There are some pretty strong criticisms of him here: http://www2.technologyreview.com/sens/docs/estepetal.pdf Looks like pseudoscience.

Your interaction with your teachers is very similar to my experiences training more junior officers to stand "Officer of the Deck" on submarines (Officer of the Deck is the position ultimately in charge of everything having to do with the boat, internally and externally. Think of the role Picard or Riker assume when they sit in the "Captain's Chair" on the bridge in Star Trek. In real life people sleep and do other stuff so officers more junior than the CO/XO take on that role most of the time).

A lot of the same second guessing and rel... (read more)

1 billion dollars earmarked for whole brain simulation makes it seem a lot more likely that we'll brute force a naive version of AI well before we have the ability to prove any kind of friendliness. If that AI is seeded by the simulated brain of an actual human though... who knows. I'd like to think that if it were my brain and at some point I became singularity-scale intelligent that I wouldn't create a horrible future for humanity (by our present day perspective) but it's pretty hard to claim that with any confidence.

There hasn't been a lot of money spent researching it, but meta-analysis of the studies that have been conducted show that on average there is no placebo effect.

3Swimmer963 (Miranda Dixon-Luinenburg)
That's really interesting...I had not heard that. Thanks for the info!

Because you're a human, not a butterfly. It seems like an animal that used a cognitive filter that defaulted to the latter case would take a pretty severe fitness hit.

A1987dM160

Three things, in no particular order:

  • I seem to recall that, in some obscure language, each noun has an agency level and in a sentence the most agenty noun is the subject by default, unless the verb is specially inflected to show otherwise: for example, “[dog] [bite] [man]” would mean ‘a man bit a dog’, regardless of word order, because the noun “[man]” has higher agency than “[dog]”.

  • Would you sooner see a tiger chasing a man, or a man running away from a tiger? If the former, it's not just the fact that butterflies are not human, it's the fact that the

... (read more)
6alex_zag_al
Don't good hunters have good mental models of their prey? I mean I get that you're thinking that it wouldn't help to feel sympathy for animals of other species. But it would help in many cases to have empathy, and to see things from the other animal's perspective.

This idea is primarily why I'm skeptical of the effectiveness of institutions like the federal reserve (despite not being a subject matter expert). It seems pretty clear that in order to be effective the leadership has to be comprised of people that are not only exceptionally brilliant, but exceptionally benevolent as well.

woodside150

I'm curious about your personal experiences with physical pain. What is the most painful thing you've experienced and what was the duration?

I'm sympathetic to your preference in the abstract, I just think you might be surprised at how little pain you're actually willing to endure once it's happening (not a slight against you, I think people in general overestimate what degree of physical pain they can handle as a function of the stakes involved, based largely on anecdotal and second hand experience from my time in the military).

At the risk of being overl... (read more)

0Mati_Roy
I would definitely pre-commit to immortality.
0[anonymous]
As soon as you stop torturing him though - and it's clear that the torture will not resume - I have high confidence (>95%) that he would go back to wanting to live.
5MugaSofer
I agree with everything you said, but I think it's worth noting: IIRC, there's an Australian jellyfish with venom so painful that one of the symptoms is begging for death After it wears off, though, preferences regarding death revert to normal. I would argue torture is equivalent to wireheading with regards to preferences, only inverted. So "tortured!me would accept death if offered" need not contradict "current!me should not accept death over torture".

I wasn't one of the downvoters, but I'll hazard a guess.

  • pursuing personal-level solutions for society-level hazards is highly inefficient.

Viscerally for me, this immediately flags as not being right. I might not understand what you mean by that statement though. It's very difficult to make an impact on the probability of society-level hazards occuring, one way or the other, so if you think there's a non-trivial chance of one of them occuring a personal-level solution seems like the obvious choice.

  • I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that that was a given on t
... (read more)
-2MugaSofer
Really? Hmm. That seems like a problem we should be fixing.
4katydee
Thanks for the reply! What I am trying to say is that preparing personal defenses for society-level issues is very expensive per expected lifespan gained/dollar relative to preparing personal defenses for personal-level issues. Further, it is possible to actually remove the harm from many personal-level issues completely through personal precautions, while the same is not really likely for societal-level issues. If you learn a better way of running and don't injure your knees, the knee injuries never happen. If you build a bomb shelter and are in your shelter when the nuclear war happens and the shelter holds up and you have sufficient supplies to wait out the radiation, society is still essentially destroyed, you just happened to live through it. Most, if not all, of the overall harm has not been mitigated. I also think the difficulty of making an impact on the probability of society-level hazards occurring is overestimated by most, but that's a separate issue. I hope that you are wrong here, but it seems quite plausible that you are right.
woodside100

It's not easy to find rap lyrics that are appropriate to be posted here. Here's an attempt.

Son, remember when you fight to be free

To see things how they are and not how you like em to be

Cause even when the world is falling on top of me

Pessimism is an emotion, not a philosophy

Knowing what's wrong doesn't imply that you right

And its another, when you suffer to apply it in life

But I'm no rookie

And I'm never gonna make the same mistake twice pussy

  • Immortal Technique "Mistakes"
woodside200

For those that don't want to do a google search, MLP:FiM = My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic (I had to look it up)

Is this one of those kid shows that adults watch these days? A show that a decent fraction of male LW readers know enough about to "ruminate on"?

I already have to navigate through my social world with the handicap of counting a work of Harry Potter fanfiction among my favorite books. If I end up owning seasons of My Little Pony because of this site I'm going to be very upset.

6MugaSofer
Yup. Try watching a few episodes, it's pretty good.
1Tenoke
Couldn't have said it any better.
0thomblake
By the way, Friendship is Science in Chapter 64 of HPMoR is a reference to Friendship is Magic.
4thomblake
Updating usefulness of the abbreviation. My initial consideration was whether I should just abbreviate it MLP, since of course people would know I was referring to Friendship is Magic. It gets enough references around here I figured it was in the popular consciousness. In my opinion, it's not an exceptionally good show. Though from what I've read so far, Fallout:Equestria is awesome. Find better friends!
9TorqueDrifter
The show is actually fairly popular amongst the male internet nerd demographic. The original creator, Lauren Faust, was a well-liked animator beforehand, and something about it just caught the popular imagination ('nerdy' references, characters and animation, well-timed slanderous editorials, etc.). There's a huge fandom that constantly produces ludicrous streams of stuff. There's been some discussion of it on LW, and I expect there's a not-insignificant population of fans here. Or "bronies", as some style themselves.
woodside250

I can see the point the author is trying to make in the story about having to be gentle with girls, but I think I'd be conflicted about it if I had a son. Later in life there are severe social and legal consequences for a man that is too rough with women and I'd hate to set my kid up for failure.

I realize there is a difference between "playing rough" and abuse but there can be grey areas at the border. There are many situations were I would physically subdue a man (both playful and serious) but not a woman, partly for fear of causing harm but ma... (read more)

To me this just seems like a disconnect between the way language is parsed by the speaker and the listener. When I hear somebody say "Atlas Shrugged is the greatest book ever written" I don't take it as the speaker's literal belief, because almost nobody means such a statement in that way.

-7[anonymous]

It would probably be useful to compile a list of times in the past that coming out the other side of the bull's horn was worth it. If you're trying to find a common thread.

What immediately comes to mind as an obvious example is Newtonian physics. There was a period in the history of science where it looked like we had figured out almost everything worth knowing in this field. That turned out not to be the case in a big way. There were clues that there might be a deeper, more general theory in the inconsistencies in observational data at the time and it see... (read more)

1Abd
The key is confirmed experimental results that are other than predicted by established theory. When theory is very well established, there is a tendency to out-of-hand dismiss contradictory results as probable errors. Sometimes that "theory of error" is accepted without the errors ever being identified. This especially can happen if there is mixed success in confirmation, which can happen when a phenomenon is not understood and is difficult to set up. Nuclear physics is such a field, where quantum mechanics is incredibly successful at making accurate predictions when the environment is simple, i.e., in a plasma. However, in the solid state, to apply quantum mechanics, to predict fusion probabilities, notably, requires simplifying assumptions. Seeking to test the accuracy of these assumptions, Pons and Fleischmann, starting in about 1984, found a heat anomaly. The effect was difficult to set up, it required loading of deuterium into palladium at a ratio higher than was normally considered possible, and most palladium samples didn't work. They were not ready to announce the work, but the University of Utah forced them, for intellectual property reasons, to hold a press conference. All hell broke loose, it is said that for a few months the bulk of the U.S. discretionary research budget was spent trying to reproduce their results. Most of these efforts were based on inadequate information about the original research, most failed (for reasons that are now understood), and a cascade developed that there was nothing but incompetence behind the finding. However, some researchers persisted, and eventually there were many independent confirmations, and the heat effect was found, by a dozen research groups, to be correlated with the production of helium, at the ratio expected for deuterium fusion to helium, within experimental error. Helium was not expected to be a normal product of deuterium fusion (it's a rare branch), and when normal (hot) fusion does result in helium

Thank you for the detailed response. Lots of interesting ideas that I'll definitely read through in detail later on when I have more time.

I do think I meant something different by the term 'noise' than the way you read it but I'm not convinced it will matter in the end. You seem to be using noise to cover the case where voters make their decisions arbitrarily because they lack preferences. I was trying to make the point that the average forced voter might be little better than random at actually identifying the candidate that would lead to the greatest fulfillment of his preferences.

0[anonymous]
You are right that the difference doesn't matter in the end and I would certainly extend my reply to cases where "little better than random" voters are classed as 'noise'. Adding "little better than random" voters is (practically) no problem, adding worse than random voters would be a problem. The latter is actually a possibility worth considering as at least arguable for some demographics. As dbaupp said, there are considerations along those lines that go either way. I note that even assuming the "average" additional voter is noise (and that the mean, median, mode and the ones denoting each border of the interquartile range are too) doesn't result in a plausible "just add noise" picture. I go as far as to say that if one in twenty of the new voters have a clue and the rest are "little better than random" the voting system wins. For the additional voters en masse to "just add noise" it would require none (or close to none) of the new voters to make meaningful better-than-random votes. This is unlikely and in fact isn't compatible with the historical data we have on how compulsory voting actually occurs in practice. (This just affirms your observation that the differences in our positions aren't merely the result of different usages of the term 'noise'.)
woodside110

What evidence is there that compulsory voting wouldn't just add noise to the selection process? This seems like the obvious outcome to me.

2Douglas_Knight
Even if a poll of all eligible voters is more noisy or just worse than a poll of typical voters, compulsory voting changes the game from the point of view of the politicians. In the US, convincing people on your side to vote seems to be a lot more effective than convincing people to switch sides. Compulsory voting changes the relative value of the two strategies, perhaps making voter turnout irrelevant. I don't know if such a change would be good or bad, but it sounds big to me. I also don't know what campaigns in actually existing compulsory voting regimes look like.
wedrifid110

What evidence is there that compulsory voting wouldn't just add noise to the selection process?

There are about two dozen countries that use compulsory voting. Looking at the ten countries that actually enforce it we find that it in fact doesn't just add noise to the selection process. We find that they in fact don't have a selection process particularly dominated by noise.

If we look at actual compulsory votes, and find that practically nobody votes for some candidates while others get a lot of votes despite the addition of the reluctant voters then tha... (read more)

0dbaupp
What evidence is there that voluntary voting doesn't just add noise to the selection process? That's a serious question: voluntary voting means that a higher percentage of the voters are in a blue-vs-green mindset (since they are more likely to vote than someone who has weak preferences), while compulsory voting gives a more accurate picture of the feelings of the entire population, even if that involves people who donkey-vote etc. (That's not to say your point isn't valid, just that the sword cuts both ways.)
woodside450

Took it.

My browser was unable to copy/past most of the links which led to less than initially intended participation on my part. For instance, I took the big 5 quiz because the address was easy to glance at and type into another tab but didn't take other surveys/tests in the bonus question sections because i didn't feel like tabbing back and forth to get the web address correct.

I haven't but I'll check it out, I'm about to go on a 20 hour plane trip.

I took the quote as a call to explore. Don't just be satisfied with learning things other people have figured out, try to creatively venture into the unknown yourself.

0gwern
http://lesswrong.com/lw/8n9/rationality_quotes_december_2011/5czw
6gwern
If that's true, then there could be no use in finding a place because you would then follow the quote's advice and never return again! Per Bohr's advice we can identify this as a meaningless 'profound truth' by reversing it:
2Document
If you are on Earth, then you're at a place someone has already found.

Retracted. I had written some brutally honest advice but realized after reading a bit more that you know a lot of people on here in person, so I'll PM instead.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

Rough Idea: Send brilliant, destitute kids to great schools from an early age in exchange for a percentage of their lifetime earnings.

Depending on the study you read there are up to hundreds of millions of children in the developing world that are in the primary/middle school age range that will never get the chance to attend a school. Some of these children have the genetic potential to be top tier in terms of intelligence and productivity but will never realize this potential.

Develop a cost-effective selection mechanism for finding these diamonds in the ... (read more)

2pjeby
Have you read The Unincorporated Man for some fictional evidence of how this idea turns out? ;-)
2PhilGoetz
You don't pluck them from their families, because you can't do this in the US or Europe anyway. You build the schools in the other countries. You're not going to send them to Harvard. The point is not to get them hooked into the US old-boy network so they can win grants or get venture capital or work for Goldman-Sachs. The point is to get them an education, which is not what top-tier US schools are for anyway. In the US, I think the law prevents you from doing this, unless you're the military.

Do you have any more examples of problems that have been solved or are trying to be solved using this approach?

This idea sounds very interesting and potentially a good business, but that rests completely on there being a large set of problems that would be cheaper to solve this way than by another method.

1spoutdoors
Yes, the business case rests strongly on having a big enough market. We think (strong gut feel, but without much data to back it up yet) that there is a very large potential market. It's kind of a "latent" market - it's a way to solve problems that people are not thinking about yet. I think of it like this: before computers became widespread, did people think about using computational tools to solve problems? No, not really. Likewise, I think, for "human computation". The capacity of the human perceptual systems to process input, and to make subtle judgments, is really tremendous, but that has not been harnessed as a resource for problem solving until recently. There's definitely a market for what I would call "plain vanilla" human computation tasks: text and audio transcription, business listing verification, etc (high volume but cognitively boring stuff). The existence and revenue-generation by MTurk and Crowd Flower, for example, is strong evidence of this. We also think there will be a market for more interesting problem-solving applications in science and engineering research. Another example: Air Quality Researcher Guy wants to model exposure to indoor and outdoor air pollution across regions in the country; people spend lots of time in their houses, so that constitutes a lot of their exposure (integrating over time); open windows dramatically change the indoor/outdoor air mix. Therefore if we know something about window-opening frequency (and regional demographics, weather, etc) we can correlate that to incidence of respiratory illnesses, for example. Soooo...we sample images from Google Streetview and have people tell us if windows are open! (simplified, ongoing project). We also think that the field of metagenomics, and the other new "-omics" fields in biology may have some interesting applications. They generate data much faster than they can analyze it, and the tools for making comparisons between this-thing-that-we-don't-know-what-it-is and that-other
woodside100

"A maid, a hot tub, and a paleo 2.0 kitchen"

Posts like these really make me want to move to the bay area.

An Eliezer Yudkowsky post a day keeps the bias at bay.

woodside150

"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week."

General Patton

Obviously not true in all cases, but good advice for folks that have trouble getting things done despite being extremely intelligent (which this community has more than its fair share of).

0matabele

Well, I agree with you that I should buy cryonics at very high prices and I plan on doing so. For the last few years I've spent the majority of my time in places where being signed up for cryonics wouldn't make a difference (9 months out of the year on a submarine, and now overseas in a place where there aren't any cryonics companies set up).

You should probably still upvote because the < 1/4 of the time I've spent in situations where it would matter still more than justify it. I should also never eat an icecream snickers again. I'll be the first to admit I don't behave perfectly rationally. :)

0MatthewBaker
more people have died from cryocrastinating than cryonics ;)
woodside140

Irrationality Game:

These claims assume MWI is true.

Claim #1: Given that MWI is true, a sentient individual will be subjectively immortal. This is motivated by the idea that branches in which death occurs can be ignored and that there are always enough branches for some form of subjective consciousness to continue.

Claim #2: The vast majority of the long-term states a person will experience will be so radically different than the normal human experience that they are akin to perpetual torture.

P(Claim #1) = 60%

P(Claim #2 | Claim #1) = 99%

7Eliezer Yudkowsky
Given these beliefs, you should buy cryonics at almost any price, including prices at which I would no longer personally sign up and prices at which I would no longer advocate that other people sign up. Are you signed up? If not, then I upvote the above comment because I don't believe you believe it. :)

Many people are unsatisfied with their monogamous relationships, therefore polyamory must be great?

I have an absolutely atrocious memory for specifics when it comes to interpersonal interactions. I have a very difficult time saying what a person did or said even later that day. What makes this strange is that I have an excellent memory for a more abstract accounting of people's abilities and can predict people's reactions to different situations with a high degree of accuracy. I deal with utilizing people very often in my job (military officer) and I am known and respected for being very good at putting the right team together for a situation and splitt... (read more)

"Most people are more complicated than they seem, but less complicated than they think"

  • BS