All of hereisonehand's Comments + Replies

Did you all see this? https://twitter.com/SquishChaos/status/1383435339910418432?s=20

Basically, claiming in the next 12 months ethereum will undergo the supply shock equivalent of 3 bitcoin halving events. Curious if rationalists see a flaw with the reasoning or are already ahead of this

1wunan
There's a discord for Crypto+Rationalists you may be interested in if you're not already aware: https://discord.gg/3ZCxUt8qYw

Is this sequence going to become a sequence in the lesswrong content library at some point? I kind of like having things in the library page so I can go back and read the whole thing later but I noticed it's not there yet.

Another weird takeaway is the timeline. I think my intuition whenever I hear about a good idea currently happening is that because it's happening right now, it's probably too late for me to get in on it at all because everyone already knows about it. I think that intuition is overweighted. If there's a spectrum from ideas being fully saturated to completely empty of people working on them, when good ideas break in the news they are probably closer to the latter than I give them credit for being. At least, I need to update in that direction.

1JustMaier
I think this is caused by the fact that we lack tooling to adequately assess the amount of free-energy available in new markets sparked by new ideas. Currently it seems the only gauge we have is media attention and investment announcements. Taking the time to assess an opportunity is operationally expensive and I think I've optimized to accept that there's probably little opportunity given that everyone else is observing the same thing. However, I'm not sure that it makes sense to adjust my optimization without first increasing my efficiency in assessing opportunities.

Ya, it's interesting because it was a "so clearly a good idea" idea. We tend to either dismiss ideas as bad because we found the fatal flaw or think "this idea is so flawless it must've been the lowest hanging fruit and thus have already been picked."

Another example that comes to mind is checklists in surgery. Gawande wrote the book "checklist manifesto" with his findings that a simple checklist dramatically improved surgical outcomes back in 2009. I wonder if the "maybe we should try to make some kind of checklist-ish modification to how we approach everything else in medicine" thought needs similar action.

I keep seeing these articles about the introduction of artificial intelligence/data science to football and basketball strategy. What's crazy to me is that it's happening now instead of much much earlier. The book Moneyball was published in 2003 (the movie in 2011) spreading the story of how use of statistics changed the game when it came to every aspect of managing a baseball team. After reading it, I and many others thought to ourselves "this would be cool to do in other sports" - using data would be interesting in every area of every... (read more)

3Gordon Seidoh Worley
Part of the problem was that doing the work to apply those insights and doing so in a way that beats trained humans is hard because until recently those models couldn't handle all the variables and data humans could and so ignored many things that made a difference. Now that more data can be fed into the models they can make the same or better predictions that humans can make and thus stand a chance of outperforming them rather than making "correct" but poorly-informed decisions that, in the real world, would have lost games.
1JustMaier
Interesting conclusion. It sounds like the bystander effect. I wonder how many big ideas don't get the action they deserve because upon hearing it we assume it's already getting the effort/energy it deserves and that there isn't room for our contribution.

I have been watching this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUjc1WuyPT8 on AI alignment (something I'm very behind on, my apologies) and it occurred to me that one aspect of the problem is finding a concrete formalized solution to Goodhart's law-styled problems? Like Yudkowsky was talking about ways that an AGI optimized towards making smiles could go wrong (namely, the AGI could find smarter and smarter ways to effectively give everyone heroin to quickly create lasting smiles) - and it seems like one aspect of this problem is that the metric... (read more)

6Wei Dai
Yes, it's part of some approaches to the AI alignment problem. It used to be considered more central to AI alignment until people started thinking it might be too hard, and started working on other ways of trying to solve AI alignment that perhaps don't require "finding an effective way to tell an AI what wellbeing is". See AI Safety "Success Stories" where "Sovereign Singleton" requires solving this and the others don't (at least not right away). See also Friendly AI and Coherent Extrapolated Volition.

woot woot! that long-term thinking paying off!

Yup, it was a quick thought I put to page and I will quickly and easily concede that 1) my initial idea wasn't expressed very clearly, 2) the way it was expressed is best interpreted by a reader in a way that makes it non-sensicle ("what does it mean to say oxygen is produced" and I didn't really tie my initial writing to climate change in the way I wanted too so what am I even talking about), 3) even the way I clarified my idea later mixed some thoughts that really should be separated out (viable != effective), and 4) I have some learn... (read more)

Thanks for helping me get informed. I was under the impression that (and this is a separate thread) planting trees was a viable initiative to fight climate change, and by extension the survival of the amazon rainforest was a significant climate change initiative? I guess I'm wondering if along these lines as well, if climate change is important on the world stage, then the health of the rainforest would be as well?

**Thanks for correcting me about the oxygen consumption line - that is what I said and it was misguided

2ChristianKl
"Viable initiative" is concept that isn't useful. What we care about are "effective strategies". Whether or not planting trees is effective depends on how much it costs and how much other strategies cost.

The fact that Amazon rainforest produces 20% atmospheric oxygen (I read this somewhere, hope this isn't fiction) should be a bigger political piece than it seems to be. Seems like brazil could be leveraging this further on a global stage (have other countries subsidize the cost of maintaining the rainforests, preventing deforestation as we all benefit from/need the CO2 to oxygen conversion)? Also, would other countries have a tree-planting supply race to eliminate dependence on such a large source of oxygen from any one agent?

Just a strange thought th... (read more)

1ChristianKl
What does that even mean? Oxygen doesn't get produced. What trees do is that they bind the carbon in CO2 and leave the oxygen molecules in the air.
5Timothy Underwood
Just as a first note, the atmosphere is about 20% oxygen, the fraction of that which gets turned over by plants in any given year is by comparison tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny. For reference, CO2, which all of that oxygen released by the Amazon is made from, is .04% of the atmosphere. You could kill every plant on earth, and we'd probably have enough oxygen for all of the animals to survive for longer than mankind has existed -- though you would get carbon dioxide poisoning at a much earlier point. But if the only CO2 was coming from respiration, it would still probably take tens of thousands of years before the concentration was dangerous. The earth running out of oxygen is literally not something that anyone should worry about. This has a relationship to why a lot of people don't treat climate change as a serious existential threat. Perhaps there is some reason to think that it is that I haven't heard -- but most of the claims that it is super dangerous that I hear are like 'if the Amazon burns down, we'll all run out of oxygen and suffocate' -- and that simply won't happen.

Hey! Great question. The conclusion regarding aerobic exercise came from lots of the literature I was reading saying something like "the effect went away when compared to aerobic exercise." I should probably not have said "high intensity," as I don't really remember looking specifically at any intensities, but umm - below I'll list the evidence from my answer that kind of points this out. [all of this is just pulled from my big answer comment so if you want more context, look there for the link, etc]

Having looked at it again t... (read more)

Thanks! To be honest I wasn't nearly as systematic as I would've liked. I did keyword searches on Google Scholar and PubMed for resistance training and weight training. On PubMed, I specifically looked for review articles and meta-analysis in one search just to look for big picture studies, but as you can see, results were a bit sparse so I also just searched generally for any articles I could find.

I'm trying to get better at this process (ask a question, research the answer), and I'm in the early phases. Future goals include 1) having ... (read more)

Answer by hereisonehand*870

I split my findings into categories and bolded the parts of the studies I found most interesting. I really didn't take the time to be super critical on study design, etc; I was just taking their findings at face value and seeing what, if the study was true as reported, was being claimed. Enjoy!

1. Sleep

... (read more)
apc140

Thanks for writing this! It was useful when organising my workout routine.

I read the Kovacevic et al paper on sleep you cite, and there are some caveats probably relevant to some LW readers. In particular, the benefits are less clear for younger adults.

  • Acute resistance exercise studies
    • "There was some evidence that an acute bout of resistance exercise may reduce the number of arousals during sleep"
    • They base this on three studies. The cohorts are elderly (65-80 years), middle-aged (mean 44.4 +- 8 years), and young (21.9 +- 2.7 years). They note tha
... (read more)
5ryan_b
This isn't delving deeper into the studies raised in the comment, I just wanted to emphasize the virtuous-cycle nature of a couple of these things. I got most of this from Stronger By Science, but I'll include the links to the papers directly, and the post analyzing them secondly. Related: Meditations on Momentum First, sleep. The study linked in the answer claims resistance training improves subjective sleep quality, but the relationship works the other way as well: Insufficient sleep undermines dietary efforts to reduce adiposity This study found two groups on the same diet while sedentary lost the same amount of weight, but for the group on 5.5 hrs of sleep 50% of that weight loss was muscle, whereas for a group on 8.5 hrs of sleep only 20% was. This has significant implications for trying to increase or even maintain strength. More commentary here. Sleep and muscle recovery: endocrinological and molecular basis for a new and promising hypothesis. This review found that lack of sleep interferes with hormone balance, namely by doing things like increasing cortisol and decreasing testosterone and growth hormone. More commentary here. In a nutshell, resistance exercise improves sleep improves resistance exercise, and so on. Second, comparison with aerobic exercise. A couple of the studies above compared aerobic exercise with anaerobic exercise, and found the effect of one or the other was stronger (on cognitive function, for example). As it happens, these two are also mutually reinforcing: Resistance Training to Momentary Muscular Failure Improves Cardiovascular Fitness in Humans: A Review of Acute Physiological Responses and Chronic Physiological Adaptations concludes that resistance training improves cardiovascular fitness; improved cardiovascular fitness results in better recovery and the ability to sustain higher resistance training loads. This effect is mitigated by specific exercises, though: Concurrent training: a meta-analysis examining interfere
6SoerenMind
"high intensity aerobic exercise provides the benefit, and resistance training, if it includes high intensity aerobic exercise, can capture that benefit." Which part made you conclude that high intensity aerobic exercise is needed? Asking because most resistance training doesn't include it. Great answer, thanks!
Raemon*170

I've decided to curate this answer. (This is a bit of a nonstandard use of LW Curation. Hopefully some day we'll have a better process for curating answers)

I have similar thoughts on this answer as I do on a previous curation notice for another literature review. I want LessWrong to be a place that incentives many kinds of intellectual work. Eventually, some day, I want LessWrong to be a place you can come to get the best answer given the current evidence on scientific questions, even if the data is murky.

There are a lot of pieces of that. Lit re... (read more)

jp100

This comment wins. This is beyond what I was hoping I would get and I'm really glad I asked. Thanks hereisonehand! Message me with paypayl/venmo/etc info to claim your prize.

3jp
Really nice job. I think I'm persuaded by your conclusions, and I intend to try to mix in more aerobic exercise. How did you do the search?

From your post:

This is circular, but is this necessarily a problem? If your choice is a circular justification or eventually hitting a level with no justification, then the circular justification suddenly starts looking pretty attractive.

I think the coherentist article I linked to has some useful perspective here. The quote below is from a section in that article on regress. The first paragraph outlines a view similar to yours and raises an important objection against the circular justification view. The 2nd paragraph raises a potential response.

What is th
... (read more)

Have you checked out any work on coherentist theories of epistemic justification? I definitely haven't done the work to have an opinion on this, but I remember this dichotomy (foundationalism v. coherentism) being referred to in old introductory epistemology coursework.

1Chris_Leong
I've heard of it, but I haven't read into it, so I avoided using the term

cool. I'll be sure to get something in by the 16th.

Is there a deadline? I'm a bit busy until the end of this week, but I wanted to try my hand at doing some lit review soon anyways. I'll probably take a shot at this sometime next monday.

2jp
Good question. I think two weeks is reasonable. I can extend it if someone messages me saying they're still working.

Practically speaking, how might I go about checking if a study has been replicated independently?

A replication will always cite the original study. Google scholar can show you all studies that cite a given page and that list is often a good place to look.

2habryka
I tend to search "<title of study> replication" in Google, as well as "<core claim of the study> replication"

Thanks for the feedback. Will change the format in the future!

Thanks for the links. I think one concern that keeps popping up is that by reading more analysis of other papers I'm just learning others' thoughts rather than learning to think my own.

Constantin's fact post approach does seem like an effective way to cut through that.