All of spencerg's Comments + Replies

I asked him if he'd come on to be interviewed as part of it, and he said he'd be interested. I believe he is not opposed to me doing the episode.

Thanks for your comment. Some thoughts:

"But a lot of your pro-DAE evidence seems to me to fail this test. E.g. ok, he lied to the customers and to the Congress; why is this substantial evidence of DAE in particular?"

Because E is evidence in favor of a hypothesis H if:

P(E given H is true) > P(E given H is false)

And the strength of the evidence is determined by the ratio:

bayes factor = P(E given H is true)/P(E given H is false)

In my view there isn't really any other reasonable mathematical definition of evidence other than the bayes factor (or transformat... (read more)

1alexey
Or to put it another way: in the full post you say but to me it looks like you could have equally replaced DAE with "narcissistic traits" in Theories B and C, and provided the same list of evidence. (1) Convicted criminals are more likely to have narcissistic traits. (2) "extreme disregard for protecting his customers" is also evidence for narcissistic traits. Etc. And then you could repeat the exercise with "sociopathy" and so on. So there are two possibilities, as far as I can see: 1. One or more things on the list are in fact not evidence for narcissistic traits. 2. They are stronger evidence for DAE than for narcissistic traits.  But it isn't clear which you believe and about what parts of the list in particular. (Of course, with the exception of (4) and (11), but they go in the opposite directions.)
1alexey
Yes, it's evidence. My question is how strong or weak this evidence is (and my expectation is that it's weak). Your comparison relies on "wet grass is typically substantial evidence for rain".
spencerg1411

I’m glad to see that Nonlinear’s evidence is now public, since Ben’s post did not seem to be a thorough investigation. As I said to Ben before he posted his original post, I knew of evidence that strongly contradicted his post, and I encouraged him to temporarily pause the release of his post so he could review the evidence carefully, but he would not delay. [cross posted this comment on EA forum]

What new evidence do you think I should update on if my view was "Nonlinear is a hard but rewarding place to work, with edit slightly aggressive tendencies that suppress bad stories. Some people will end up badly hurt by this. Both parties can try and avoid that happening."

Cos that was roughly my view and it still is. 

At the top it says it’s a link post and links to the full post, I thought that would make it clear that it’s a link post not a full post.

It’s difficult to keep three versions in sync as I fix typos and correct mistakes, which is why I prefer to not have three separate full versions.

2Nathaniel Monson
That's fair. I guess I'm used to linkposts which are either full, or a short enough excerpt that I can immediately see they aren't full.

The reason I talk about DAE and not NPD is because DAE and NPD are different conditions, and while I took seriously while investigating this the possibility that NPD was the cause, I didn’t find enough evidence for that explanation, whereas I found a lot of evidence for DAE. If you think I’m wrong, and see significant evidence for NPD I’d be interested to see that evidence.

Not to say that DAE and NPD have nothing to do with each other, but they aren’t the same.

I would never say to someone who was abused by someone with NPD that they are merely experiencing... (read more)

2Nathaniel Monson
Glad to, thanks for taking it well. I think this would have been mitigated by something at the beginning saying "this is an excerpt of x words of a y word post located at url", so I can decide at the outset to read here, read there, or skip. Is the reason you didn't put the entire thing here basically blog traffic numbers?

There were clear ways in which he was really bad at things, but also, clear ways that he was really good at some things.  The FTX exchange is not something easy to build, and it's much harder still to make it into a successful exchange like he did. Seems pretty clear he was really skilled at some things, despite his big weaknesses. But I don't think it can be dismissed as just that he was bad at stuff.  Also, him being bad at stuff doesn't explain highly unethical actions that he appears to have taken.

8Steven Byrnes
I think SBF was bad at the same kinds of things that other high-functioning sociopaths tend to be bad at, e.g. problems stemming from * relative aversion to doing boring low-stimulation things (e.g. maintaining a spreadsheet) * conversely, a relative penchant for arousal-seeking / thrill-seeking (psychologically I think this stems from global under-arousal), * relative lack of seriousness about avoiding downside risks (psychologically I think this stems from lack of visceral worry about such things) All the “mismanagement” examples that @cata mentioned seem to fit into those categories, more or less, I think. For example, I recall hearing that high-functioning sociopaths in general tend to be terrible at managing their finances and often wind up in debt. I can’t immediately find where I heard that, but it is very true for both of the high-functioning sociopaths that I’ve known personally.

It's more specific than sociopathy.  Also, terms like sociopath/psychopath are problematic because people have a lot of associations with those terms, not all of them accurate, and so I thought it would be better to be more precise about what I mean and also to avoid terms that people have connations around.

2jmh
Thanks.

You're using a different word "utility" than I am here. There are at least three definitions of that word. I'm using the one from hedonic utilitarianism (since that's what most EAs identify as), not the one from decision theory (e..g., "expected utility maximization" as a decision theory), and not the one from economics (rational agents maximizing "utility"). 

spencerg1218

If we want to look at general principles rather than specific cases, if the original post had not contained a bunch of serious misinformation (according to evidence that I have access to) then I would have been much more sympathetic to not delaying.

But the combination of serious misinformation + being unwilling to delay a short period to get the rest of the evidence I find to be a very bad combination.

I also don’t think the retaliation point is a very good one, as refusing to delay doesn’t actually prevent retaliation.

I don’t find the lost productivity po... (read more)

spencerg*7414

Hi all, I wanted to chime in because I have had conversations relevant to this post with just about all involved parties at various points. I've spoken to "Alice" (both while she worked at nonlinear and afterward), Kat (throughout the period when the events in the post were alleged to have happened and afterward), Emerson, Drew, and (recently) the author Ben, as well as, to a much lesser extent, "Chloe" (when she worked at nonlinear). I am (to my knowledge) on friendly terms with everyone mentioned (by name or pseudonym) in this post. I wish well... (read more)

The nearly final draft of this post that I was given yesterday had factual inaccuracies that (in my opinion and based on my understanding of the facts) are very serious

Could you share examples of these inaccuracies?

xarkn1214

You are not directly vouching for anyone here, but as a general point I'd like to argue that friendship is a poor predictor of ethical behavior. 

It may be tempting to consider positive social experiences and friendship as evidence that someone behaves generally ethically and with high standards, but when dealing with more capable people, it's not. Maintaining ethical behavior and building trust in low-stakes settings like friendship with few temptations to try and exploit for profit is trivially easy. Especially if you are socially skilled and capable... (read more)

habryka*317171

I don't have all the context of Ben's investigation here, but as someone who has done investigations like this in the past, here are some thoughts on why I don't feel super sympathetic to requests to delay publication: 

In this case, it seems to me that there is a large and substantial threat of retaliation. My guess is Ben's sources were worried about Emerson hiring stalkers, calling their family, trying to get them fired from their job, or threatening legal action. Having things be out in the public can provide a defense because it is much easier to ... (read more)

The way you define values in your comment:

"From the AI "engineering" perspective, values/valued states are "rewards" that the agent adds themselves in order to train (in RL style) their reasoning/planning network (i.e., generative model) to produce behaviours that are adaptive but also that they like and find interesting (aesthetics). This RL-style training happens during conscious reflection."

is just something different than what I'm talking about in my post when I use the phrase "intrinsic values." 

From what I can tell, you seem to be arguing:

 ... (read more)

Hi Caerulea-Lawrence, thanks for your comment. The reason we say: "If you don’t understand that worldview, then you’ll be unable to predict what these groups will do. You will also struggle to communicate with them in a way that they care about, or persuade them to do things differently." is not because we are trying to convince anyone to have a particular worldview with this piece - it's because we are trying to motivate people to see other perspectives even if they are still stuck in their own perspective. That is, there are instrumental reasons to try t... (read more)

1Caerulea-Lawrence
Hi again spencerg, You are welcome. Maybe this answer will help answer some of your questions. What I am imagining, is what your text would look like if you started your post by describing your own worldview and your own intentions and motivations; your own answers to the four questions?  You write that every worldview has their own truth, so wouldn't it make things clearer if you acknowledge and specify the link between your own worldview and why you write this post?  I do acknowledge that you have already put in a lot of work in this, and my comments are not meant to address all the facets of your post in its entirety. I am honing in on the one part that seems a bit contradictory to me, and confusing, in the hopes that it can help in improving things the way you want to. Kindly, Caerulea-Lawrence

Many hundreds of people read this piece, and whenever we received feedback from people who identified with one of the worldviews, if they believed their views were being misrepresented, we made adjustments in line with their feedback when we felt that the case they made was convincing (but like we acknowledged in the piece, we're not going to be covering everyone's perspective here). Your characterization of what the world looks like from the point of view of a Social Justice Advocate seems like something that a Social Justice Advocate would genuinely disagree with.

2ChristianKl
That process gives you what people believe they should believe and not what they actually believe. The sequences have a lot about the problems of belief in belief.  If faith, piety, humility, and self-sacrifice were the driving values for American Christian Conservatives you wouldn't see them driving big pickup trucks. Being gun-owning wouldn't be central either, if those would be the values that people actually used to make decisions.  If you believe that those are the actual values, then you would predict that American Christian Conservatives have a problem with Trump, but they don't.  If you doubt the importance of loyalty, you can ask Social Justice Advocate "How important do you think it is for white men to be allies?" Allyship is about loyalty and the answer you will get is that it's very important. 

I'm surprised you see this as coming from a conservative perspective, because neither Amber nor I are conservatives. You're right that there are lots of other views that are not addressed in this piece. We focused on a small list of some of the most popular views, and of course, any one individual will have some differences in opinion with the world view that best represents them, as we mentioned in the piece.

Thanks for the cost estimates on producing transcripts, that's helpful! 

Oh whoops, that was definitely a mistake on my part, I meant to include that one, sorry for the oversight! I updated the post!

Unfortunately, we don't have transcripts for these! Sorry about that. I recommend listening at 1.5x-2.5x speed.

1tivelen
I tested Otter.ai for free on the first forty minutes of one podcast (Education and Charity with Uri Bram), and listening at 2x speed allowed me to make a decent transcript at 1x speed overall with a few pauses for correction. The main time sinks were separating the speakers and correcting proper nouns, both of which seem to be features of the paid $8.33/month version of the program (which if used fully would cost $0.001/minute to use). If those two time sinks are in fact totally fixed by the paid version, I could easily imagine creating a decent accurate transcript in half the run time of the podcast. Someone who can type faster than me could possibly cut the time down even more. If there is sufficient real demand for particular/all transcripts, I would be willing to do this transcription myself at no cost (though I would be best convinced of the need for these transcripts via some kind of payment for my work if I'm going to do a lot of them. I don't want to waste my effort on something people merely say they would like.)
2BrianTan
There's Otter.ai which costs $8-30/month depending on which plan you get. You can try their free plan too to get a feel of how good their transcription is. I haven't used rev.com compared to Otter, but I think it also takes ~1x the time of the audio to fix the mistakes of Otter.ai, which would make it similar in time-cost to fixing Rev.com transcripts. So Otter.ai might be a way cheaper option than Rev.com. And the transcripts should be ready within 30-60 minutes of you upload it, given that it's AI-based, versus Rev, which I think is actual people typing your transcript.
7mingyuan
I don't feel like listening faster solves the same problem as having a transcript... Also yeah, like the podcasters below mentioned, it's totally worth it to make transcripts. Just use Rev.com. 

for reference of how costly transcripts are, the first "speech-to-audio" conversion is about $1.25 per minute, and it could take 1x the time of the audio to fix the mistakes when both have native accents, and up to 2x the audio time for non-native speakers. For a 1h podcast, this would amount to $75 + hourly rate, so roughly $100/podcast. Additionally, there's a YT-generated-subtitles free alternative. I'm currently trying this out, I'll edit this to let you know how long it takes to fix them per audio hour.

Hi, I'm not sure if this works automatically with cross-posting - depends what you mean exactly. You'd have to set it up on each website you want the cards to appear on.

Hi Yoav! Sorry for the troubles, we'll investigate - I just sent you a private message via LessWrong, could you take a look? Thanks! 

A few thoughts on this:

• I don't think Orbit existed when we started working on Thought Saver (or if it did, we didn't know about it). When Quantum Country came out I wasn't aware (not sure if anyone was aware?) at the time that it was part of a larger project (maybe it wasn't yet at that point?)

• Thought Saver has a different focus than Orbit (e.g., Thought Saver is not focussed on embedded essays - it just seems that way because the LessWrong team asked if we could add that feature since they wanted to try embedded flashcard quizzes). Thought Saver is mo... (read more)

6andymatuschak
Thanks, Spencer—I'm excited to see what you learn from this. :) FWIW, Orbit can indeed be used self-serve, but its OEmbed support (for embedding into user-generated content editors like on here, Medium, GitHub, etc) is not yet available; you must be able to embed HTML blocks. I've not yet advertised this very broadly because I've been looking to cultivate closer relationships with authors in contexts where the medium might be especially useful. Like many commenters here, I fear the existing embedding interaction is probably a net negative in many contexts.

Hi Yoav! It should be putting them all into the same deck. If you click the search bar it should show all your decks. Can you click feedback in the upper right and tell us what you see there? We've never encountered an issue like the one you're describing. We'd like to help you get to the bottom of it.

 

Thanks!

2Yoav Ravid
When I click the search bar it shows the starting deck I added (How to make the most of thought saver) and 6 decks with the same name (which is the number of cards I created for it)

Fair enough, though I disagree with these points. For one thing, this feature already works, so I don't expect it will take any significant amount of time from the LessWrong dev team. 

But to respond to your more specific points, from my perspective:

(1) there is a common misconception that flashcards and/or spaced repetition is mainly useful for facts and definitions. It is also very useful for concepts ("a generative adversarial network is..."), takeaways (e.g., "the most important three points this post makes are..."), connections between ideas ("X a... (read more)

7Gordon Seidoh Worley
These are all quite reasonable, and I'm pretty open to the idea that I'm mistaken and anchoring too much on the fact that I didn't find flash cards for spaced repetition useful, which might ultimately bias how heavily I weight things or assess the likelihood that flashcards would be helpful.

Yep, you can import from csv file format and export (your own decks) to csv file format using Thought Saver.

2Gunnar_Zarncke
Great. Will look into it.

A big shout-out to David for making this feature happen :) 

Sorry to hear you didn’t like it. What we’re the aspects that turned you off? Do you mean the flash cards and exercises or something else?

Interesting question - to what extent is ego depletion (insofar as it occurs) related to rising marginal cost of effort? It feels to me that is part of what's going on, but maybe not all of it. For instance, some forms of effort feel like their marginal cost only goes up gradually, and others more steeply. Motivation also seems relevant (it can go down over time) and that seems to have less to do with marginal cost from what I can tell.

Haha, I hope you managed to get it done :) 

Thanks for this very thoughtful reply Kaj, I really appreciate the time you took to break down your thoughts on each strategy! :) 

Good point! I actually had that as a footnote in the original post, but accidentally didn't port it over when I constructed the article here. Thanks for the feedback.

Agreed that people's internal mental states can be wildly different even while their external behavior is about the same. Yet there is a temptation to assume that similar external behavior implies similar mental states.

That's interesting. One thing I'll note about "energy" is that I suspect it can be subdivided further. For instance, I think that mental fatigue (e.g., after doing hard math problems for an hour) differs from physical fatigue (e.g., after lifting weights hard for an hour) which differs from sleepiness (e.g., when you haven't slept for a long time), and I also suspect that mental slowness (e.g., like some people get upon waking or when drunk) is a fourth thing. It sometimes seems pep/enthusiasm are yet another thing that it's meaningful to distinguish from the others (you can feel a lack of fatigue without having pep).

3fT3g0
Agree. I think most cases in modern worklife and productivity questions boil down to the mental fatigue + mental slowness components, which in my mind would be correlated but distinct.

Hi Kaj, thanks for your comments, I find them really interesting! I was not intending the article to be about how to become Ty (internally). I think Ty has a bunch of traits that are difficult to replicate (note: Ty is a real person, but Ty is not their real name - they agreed with everything I said about them in the article and I used their details with permission). I do, however, think it is feasible to behave in ways that are more like Ty, through other means (e.g., by applying specific strategies). So I agree that the strategies aren't about making one... (read more)

7Raemon
FYI, I'd have found it helpful to have formally stated "Ty is a real person, but not their real name." I found myself fairly confused about whether he was real and assumed he probably wasn't.
9Kaj_Sotala
Thanks for engaging, and glad to hear you find my comments interesting :) I forgot to say that I do really like the little "flashcards" interspersed in the essay - great device for increasing recall. (I immediately started wondering whether to implement them for some of my own upcoming articles.) If we agree on these strategies not being useful for becoming like Ty internally, then I guess there are two separate questions: * Is it useful to lump these strategies together as counteractive * Are they useful in general (regardless of whether they're counteractive or not) Addressing the second question first, I do acknowledge that I'm probably biased towards these kinds of approaches because they have tended to not be very effective for me, making me somewhat unfairly assume that they're not going to be very effective for others, either. :)  But putting my personal bias aside, I do grant that these are useful for many people. My bigger issue was that even if they are effective, I do think that many of them are counteractive, and both the title ("Self Control Without 'Self-Control'") and the initial Ty story led me to expect a discussion of non-counteractive ("transformative") methods.  And to be clear, even though I think that transformative methods are better if you can use them, I again don't mean to say that counteractive methods are worthless. They're just not what I was expecting. :) As for my argument that they're counteractive... by 'counteractive', I mean: * An approach that involves countering an existing response with a new response, so that the old and new responses compete. * Competition may mean that they a) are locked in an eternal struggle without either one ever becoming clearly dominant or b) the counteractive response may eventually establish itself as mostly dominant but still fail in some circumstances or c) the counteractive response may eventually suppress the original response completely, but getting there requires some time and effor

Ty IS a real person! (used with permission, but Ty is not their name)

Hi Vladimir, thanks for your comments. Could you elaborate on what you would like to see more justification for when you say ("insufficient readily available justification")? I'd also be interested to know what framing seemed "somewhat arbitrary." 

In the section "Nine Traits of Self-Controlled Behavior" my claim is that those pretty self-evidently are traits that (i) differ non-negligibly between people and (ii) can manifest as "self-controlled behavior." Are there items in that list that you think don't differ between people, or that you don't think ... (read more)

Interesting, thanks for letting me know - could you say a bit more about what feels negatively framed about it, and what it would be like to make it positly framed?

Hi Austin, I'm glad you found the article useful! :) 

Good catch, thanks for pointing that out!

Good point! Somehow I didn't notice that :) 

Thank you for pointing that out, it would have been better if I had spoken more carefully. I definitely don't think that uncertainty is in the territory. Please interpret "there is great uncertainty in X" as "our models of X produce very uncertain predictions."

0Simon Fischer
Ok, I'm glad you interpreted my comment as constructive criticism. Thanks for your efforts!