All of yagudin's Comments + Replies

yagudin1-3

There is already a lot of automatic censoring happening. I am unsure how much LLMs add on top of existing and fairly successful techniques from spam filtering. And just using LLMs is probably prohibitive at the scale of social media (definitely for tech companies, maybe not for governments), but perhaps you can get an edge for some use-case with them.

But I (and I think others on LW team although for slightly different reasons) have been thinking about building a feature directly into LW to facilitate it. 

 

Maybe consider making it super easy (one click easy) to export LW posts to google docs? 

yagudin115

ACX is probably a better reference class: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/2023-subscription-drive-free-unlocked. In Jan, ACX had 78.2k readers, of which 6.0k subscribers for a 7.7% subscription rate. 

5philh
Strictly, the 78k is for subscribers (probably meaning people who get the emails), not readers; someone who uses RSS to keep up or just visits the site every now and then won't be counted. I don't have much intuition for how many readers will be subscribers.

I think it might be good to normalize "just try stuff until they fix your condition" as one of the treatment strategies. I guess it's a bit ironic that Dr. Spray-n-pray's indifference toward which pill worked and why seems so epistemically careless, while actually maybe being a correct way to orient towards success when you optimize for luck and have little reliable information.

  1. Russian military doctrine allows the usage of nuclear weapons to defend Russian territory.

 

This is ~false. See: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/TkLk2xoeE9Hrx5Ziw/nuclear-attack-risk-implications-for-personal-decision?commentId=ukEznwTnD78wFdZip#ukEznwTnD78wFdZip

5Pee Doom
Putin could interpret an attack on its newly annexed territories as "greatly endangering Russia's existence". He seems to be generating rhetoric in that direction.
yagudinΩ460

I want to mention that Tsvi Benson-Tilsen is a mentor at this summer's PIBBSS. So some readers might consider applying (the deadline is Jan 23rd).

I myself was mentored by Abram Demski once through the FHI SRF, which AFAIK was matching fellows with a large pull of researchers based on mutual interests.

I am looking for text-to-speech tools for various contexts.  As of now, I am using

yagudin160

I would appreciate it if the ToC linked to the web versions of the essay.

4Pattern
As would I.   Perhaps that can be fixed with a spreadsheet: Title  Author  Formula                      Base Link [etc.] [etc.]     =concat(A4, A2, A3)    https://www.lesswrong.com/search?terms= Then it's just a matter of copying columns 3 and 4 down, (after pasting in the TOCs), opening a bunch of tabs, then copying the results over to column 5. Then a formula for column 6 could spit out the markdown formatting, which can be copied and pasted* into a comment with the appropriate formatting selected. *Copied as a column for speed.   Any ideas for ways to point to, or retrieve*, the first search result by default? *Might already have the formatting (title and link).
yagudin120

A follow-up (h/t LW review). I got quite a bit out of the workshop, most importantly

  • I found a close friend and collaborator, whom I don't think I would have met otherwise.
  • I found a close friend and co-founder, whom I was likely to meet otherwise, but it's unlikely that we would have a good enough bond by covid-times.

There was much more but much less legible and "evaluatable." I think ESE was excellent, and I would have done it even if I knew that I wouldn't get two close friendships out of it.

yagudin*120

Or, to change tack: the operating budget of the LessWrong website has historically been ~$600k, and this budget is artificially low because the site has paid extremely below-market salaries. Adjusting for the market value of the labor, the cost is more like $1M/year, or $2,700/day. If I assume LessWrong generates more value than the cost required to run it, I estimate that the site provides at least $2,700/day in value, probably a good deal more.

 

I think this estimate is mistaken because it ignores marginalism: basically, the cost of disabling LW for ... (read more)

2Martin Randall
The estimate also misses the mark because the stakes were not disabling LessWrong for a day. When the button is pressed, only the front page goes down. RSS feed is unaffected, search engine results are unaffected, etc. Eg, see Slider, Measure. A Fermi estimate: given the investment of time and money in LessWrong, I estimate that it creates $10M/yr in rationalist value. Not bad. But for a one day front page outage I apply a 90% discount due to diminishing returns and a further 90% due to only the front page going down. That gets me to $300 of value lost. Not nothing, but a different scale. If I didn't apply those discounts, and genuinely thought that $30,000 of rationalist value was at stake, I'd think that the Petrov Day ritual was a terrible idea! Given the 33% observed chance of launching "nukes", that's only justified if the ritual creates more than $10,000 of value. The claim is that the ritual increases overall trust, so this increased trust has to lead to at least a 0.1% increase in productivity. That's a large effect size for (a bit more than) sending a bulk email that 100 people opened.
8Ben Pace
I will note that the curves here are non-intuitive, for example I suspect that 2 weeks down is less than 2x as bad as 1 week down, because the first week is enough to mess everyone's "check LessWrong" habit and cause long-term losses to LWers contributions, and so most of the value is already lost before the 2nd week down. (Note: I don't know if I stand by the 1 vs 2 weeks in particular, those are example numbers.)

Maybe reading Gelman's self-contained comments on SSC's More Confounders would make you more confused in a good way.

1Hoagy
Cheers, glad I'm not dealing with 300 variables. Don't think the situation is quite as dire as for sleeping pills luckily.

Hey! Could you say more about a causal link between Sequences and writing these papers, please:

I was able to do from muscle memory certain calculations about conditional probability and expectation that might have taken weeks otherwise (if we figured them out at all). I attribute this ability in large part to reading the Sequences.

I think my confusion comes from (a) having enough math background (read some chapters of The Probabilistic Method yers ago); (b) while reading Sequences and more so AF discussions added to my understanding of formal epistemology, I am surprised that your emphasis how Sequences affected your muscle memory and ability to do calculations.

3alkjash
To be clear, the papers would almost certainly have gone through anyway, the helpful thing was being very comfortable with Bayes rule and immediately noticing, for example, that conditioning on an event with probability 1-o(1) doesn't influence anything by very much.  Another trick I derived from this comfort is to almost never actually condition on small-probability events. Instead, the better thing to do is to modify the random variables you care about to fail catastrophically in the small probability scenario.  For example, in graph theory I might care about controlling a random variable X which is the number of times a certain substructure appears in the random graph G(n,p), but to do so I need to condition away some tail event E like the appearance of a vertex of extremely high degree. Instead of working with conditional probability for the rest of the argument (which might go on to condition away 3 or 4 other tail events), the nicer thing to do is to modify X into a variable X' which is defined to be 0 when E occurs, and reason about X' instead. This is better for multiple reasons; the most important one being that the edge appearances in G(n,p) are no longer independent when you condition on E complement. I think mostly what I got out of the Sequences was removing an air of mystery around Bayes rule. Here by mystery I mean "System 1 mystery," i.e. that before I read the Sequences, to figure out a conditional probability I would have to sit down and carefully multiply and divide. This post also helped.

As this answer got upvoted, I collected some Dubna's courses read in English, for which recordings are available (look for "Доступны 4 видеозаписи курса.")

Answer by yagudin210
5yagudin
As this answer got upvoted, I collected some Dubna's courses read in English, for which recordings are available (look for "Доступны 4 видеозаписи курса.") * Computations: from Turing machines to Tilings * First glances at the principles of Statistical Mechanics: what are Gibbs measures? * Groups, trees, and ends * Topological methods in combinatorics and discrete geometry
2adamShimi
Thanks! The first link is especially awesome!
Answer by yagudin20

Metaculus 2020 U.S. Election Risks Survey doesn't give >1% for >5000 deaths, but I think it is justified to infer something like that from it:

While large-scale violence and military intervention to quell civil unrest seem unlikely, experts still judged these possibilities to be far from remote. Experts predicted a median of 60 deaths occurring due to election-related violence, with an 80% confidence interval of 0 to 912 fatalities that reflects a high degree of uncertainty. Still, the real possibility of violence is a notable departure from the peace

... (read more)

A better example: one might criticize CDC for lack of advice aimed at the vulnerable demographics. But absence might result not from lack of judgment but from political constraints. E.g. jimrandomh writes:

Addendum: A whistleblower claims that CDC wanted to advise elderly and fragile people to not fly on commercial airlines, but removed this advice at the White House's direction.

Upd: this might be indicative of other negative characteristics of CDC (which might contribute to unreliability) but I don't know enough about the US gov to asses it.

While for me it is, indeed, a reason to put less weight on their analysis or expect less useful work/analysis to be done by them in a short/medium-term.

But I think this consideration, also, weakens certain types of arguments about the CDC's lack of judgment/untrustworthiness. For example, arguments like "they did this, but should have done better" loses part of its bayesian weight as the organization likely made a lot of decisions under time pressure and other constraints. And things are more likely to go wrong if you're under-stuffed a... (read more)

3yagudin
A better example: one might criticize CDC for lack of advice aimed at the vulnerable demographics. But absence might result not from lack of judgment but from political constraints. E.g. jimrandomh writes: Upd: this might be indicative of other negative characteristics of CDC (which might contribute to unreliability) but I don't know enough about the US gov to asses it.

Unless there are large enough demographics for which this post looks credible while FB conspiracies do not.

If the only issue is tone, you could write something like: 'Initially, I was confused/surprised by the core claim you made but reading this, this, and that [or thinking for 15 minutes/further research] made me believe that your position is basically correct'. This looks quite

[...] "Yes, you are correct about that" comes across as quite arrogant [...]

I attended Epistea Summer Experiment and greatly enjoyed it. (At the same time I am quite skeptical about value of any rationality workshops for EA-inspired work.)

yagudin*90

Thanks for the post. I would recommend reading the original blog post by Noam Brown as it has the proper level of exposition and more details/nuances.

Overall, it seems that Pluribus is conceptually very similar to Libratus; sadly, no new insights about >2-player games. My impression is that because poker players don't collude/cooperate too much, playing something close to an equilibrium against them will make you rich.

Answer by yagudin30
If one has 2 possible models to fit a data set, by how much should one penalize the model which has an additional free parameter?

Penalization might not be necessary if your learning procedure is stochastic and favors simple explanations. I encourage you to take a look on the nice poster/paper «Deep learning generalizes because the parameter-function map is biased towards simple functions» (PAC-Bayesian learning theory + empirical intuitions).

Rohin, thank you for the especially long and informative newsletter.

When there are more samples, we get a lower validation loss [...]

I guess you've meant a higher validation loss ?

2Rohin Shah
No, I think lower is correct? More samples --> more data to fit to --> less chance to overfit to noise in the training data --> better performance on held-out validation data --> lower validation loss.

Alexey, happy birthday to your podcast! I've just subscribed and hope you would post consistently in the future. How many subscribers do you have?

1Alexey Lapitsky
Thank you, the newsletter is alive and well :) I've managed to keep the updates weekly and I'm planning on continuing doing that. There are a couple of hundred people subscribed so far.

If you are curious why Russian chatroom is so big I encourage you to read about Kocherga. With 174 karma and 54 votes, it is the highest rated non-curated LW post at the moment.

Answer by yagudin70

I would like to highlight Russian LessWrong Slack, which has 2000+ registered users, ~150 WAU (among which ~50 are posting) and ~80 DAU (~25 are posting).

9yagudin
If you are curious why Russian chatroom is so big I encourage you to read about Kocherga. With 174 karma and 54 votes, it is the highest rated non-curated LW post at the moment.
9Said Achmiz
The Diaspora Map is indeed useful, but it is not mine; namespace maintains the map (and that is his wiki that it’s hosted on).

I augment Pomodoros with

  • UltraWorking's Cycles, a check-list/spreadsheet for productive and focused work;
  • and Strechly, a cross-platform break reminder app.

I am quite sure, that Moscow's LW will celebrate a Secular Solstice on 21 or 22 of Dec.

yagudin200

An example from Feynman's «The Character of Physical Law»:

The next guy who did something great was Maxwell, who obtained the laws of electricity and magnetism. What he did was this. He put together all the laws of electricity, due to Faraday and other people who came before him, and he looked at them and realized that they were mathematically inconsistent. In order to straighten it out he had to add one term to an equation. He did this by inventing for himself a model of idler wheels and gears and so on in space. He found what the new law was – but no
... (read more)

Wikipedia page for 'Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia' is a great source of useful sleep related habits.

Divestment and mission hedging are examples of politically motivated finance activity. Divestment seems to be somewhat popular, but inefficient. Mission hedging is not well-known, but probably quite good.

5ryan_b
I just wanted to circle back and say that mission hedging is exactly the direction I was hoping would be explored - thanks!
yagudin440

A very successful crowdfunding for printing HPMoR has happened in Russia. 21k books are going to be printed: some of them will go to public/university libraries, some to gifted students. More good HPMoR related news are coming from Russia, but too early to announce them.

I think this paper, which models winner-takes-all, public knowledge situations (ex. the space race between the US and USSR) by «Guess Who?» game, is interesting formal model of the first half of this post.

“Guess Who?” is a popular two player game where players ask “Yes”/“No” questions to search for their opponent’s secret identity from a pool of possible candidates. This is modeled as a simple stochastic game. Using this model, the optimal strategy is explicitly found. Contrary to popular belief, performing a binary search is not always optimal. Instead, t
... (read more)

You are welcome! A general concern about the pace of scientific progress.

yagudin100

The most in-depth, but a bit outdated (c. 2012) article on sleep is written by Piotr Wozniak, whom you might know as a pioneer of spaced repetition software. The article is ~300 pages long. It includes summary & myths sections which are a bit longer than this post.

1yagudin
Wikipedia page for 'Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia' is a great source of useful sleep related habits.
3jmh
Just a side question here about the "a bit outdated (c. 2012)" note. Is that because you think the science/level of knowledge or some other technology related to such studies is changing that quickly? Both the reference to additional sources and the review were great. Thanks to both you and ricraz.

Somehow related papers in ML / DL:

  • Keeping NN Simple by Minimizing the Description Length of the Weights (Hinton, 1997);
  • Binarized Neural Networks (Courbariaux, 2016).

It seems to me, that Dacyn's code executes [stuff] at least once for any n. But iff n <= 0, original while loop does not execute its body. Dacyn's code looks like a do-while loop.

2ESRogs
Oh right. For loops check the condition before entering the body, just like while loops and unlike do-while loops. Thanks.

I associate myself with the unconscious-self more and more (note: an unconscious-self is bigger than an elephant-self because some modules in a brain are deliberate & analytical, but not directly available to the verbal/conscious rider; I very much agree with @moridinamael's comment above).

Conscious-self seems more like press secretary for more hard-working unconscious-self, who is in charge of most of the decision-making. But, ugh, everyone experienced how «conscious ruled unconscious» (≈ will-power). I think the role of conscious-self in «the u... (read more)

Youtube

I permanently blocked the website in all browsers I use. I use command line tool youtube-dl to download the videos I want/need to watch. This workflow gives me an option to watch videos (and also some friction to reevaluate the decision to watch a video); but prevents me from engaging with youtube, the risky game I might 'loss' otherwise.

I predict that a lot of people who would take rationalist lent's advice seriously would try to quite the same things and there are others who has hit on a good diet of experience that they could try to emulate. So It would be helpful to have a list of diets for quitting unwanted behaviour. Feel free to leave your recipes as a reply to this comment.

8yagudin
Youtube I permanently blocked the website in all browsers I use. I use command line tool youtube-dl to download the videos I want/need to watch. This workflow gives me an option to watch videos (and also some friction to reevaluate the decision to watch a video); but prevents me from engaging with youtube, the risky game I might 'loss' otherwise.
yagudin110

See also: the guide by Alex Vermeer is fruitful for reviewing the past and planning the following years in an analytical and systematic way.

Two interesting questions arise:

  • could Alpha Zero beat the best human-computer team;
  • would human-AZ team systematically beat AZ.

I think the answer to the first question is positive, but unfortunately, I couldn't make much sense of the available raw data on Freestyle chess, so my opinion is based on the marginal revolution blog-post. The negative answer to the second question might make some optimists about human-AI cooperation like Kasparov less optimistic.

4roystgnr
I believe the answer to your second question is probably technically "yes"; if there's any way in which AZ mispredicts relative to a human, then there's some Ensemble Learning classifier that weights AZ move choices with human move choices and performs better than AZ alone. And because Go has so many possible states and moves at each state, humans would have to be much, much, much worse at play overall for us to conclude that humans were worse along every dimension. However, I'd bet the answer is practically "no". If AlphaZero vs the top humans is now an Elo difference of 1200, that gives a predicted human victory rate of about 1/1000. We'd never be able to play enough games to get enough systematic data to identify a dimension along which humans chose better moves. And even if we did, it's entirely possible that the best response to that identification would be "give AlphaZero more training time on those cases", not "give AlphaZero a human partner in those cases". And even if we did decide to give AlphaZero a human partner, how often would the partner's input end up overriding the move AlphaZero alone would have chosen? Would the human even be able to uselessly pay attention for game after game, just so they could be ready to contribute to a winning move on game 100?