Yeah, I agree and I do apologize deeply for things not being as fast as they should be.
habryka(Oliver Habryka)
Karma: 13,497
Announcing LessWrong 3.0 – Now in VR! (Launch party 6:30PM PST)
Yeah, the whole platform is definitely still pretty buggy.
My experience was great after 30 initial minutes of chaos, and then I had an hour of pretty good conversation.
Respond to this comment if you want to ask a question that will be asked in the Q&A section.
This is the fixed link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qYNjZZGLDQ&feature=youtu.be
Promoted to curated: I’ve been thinking about this post a lot since it has come out, and it is just a really good presentation of all the research on AI Alignment via debate. It is quite long, which has made me hesitant about curating it for a while, but I now think curating it is the right choice. I also think while it is reasonably technical, it’s approachable enough that the basic idea of it should be understandable by anyone giving it a serious try.
Hey, I’ve been thinking of curating this post. Would you be up for crossposting it’s full content now that it’s been out for a while, which would allow us to curate it?
Rob Bensinger’s COVID-19 overview
Oops, fixed. It’s noon PDT.
Coronavirus Research Ideas for EAs
March 25: Daily Coronavirus Updates
I think the model uses a much shorter time for active infections than 2.5 weeks. Not sure what it is, but I think it’s closer to 5 days or something like that, which seems to actually fit the behavior of the disease best, on a broad scale.
Agree that it looks weird. I’ve asked the authors of the project to add a cumulative graph, which makes these assumptions a lot clearer.
That’s active infections. That number corresponds to something like 70% of the population having been infected at some point.
March 24th: Daily Coronavirus Link Updates
This problem cannot be cleanly solved analytically (because f is discontinuous and obviously lacking a clean closed form), but is expressed by a beautiful and simple differential equation.
Huh, this is a great example. My historical relationship to differential equations has been mostly from the perspective of “it’s a method by which you eventually arrive at good analytic descriptions of systems”. I think this example really concretely illustrated why that’s a wrong perspective.
I expect to learn some lessons from it, in particular in how to design high-density UIs in a LessWrong context, that I expect will show up in other parts of LessWrong. I can also imagine that at some point we would more generally support complicated tables and databases on LessWrong, but that seems quite a while away.
March 22nd & 23rd: Coronavirus Link Updates
Promoted to curated: This post is a bit more technical than the usual posts we curate, but I think it is still quite valuable to read for a lot of people, since it’s about a topic that has already received some less formal treatment on LessWrong.
I also am very broadly excited about trying move beyond a naive bayesianism paradigm, and felt like this post helped me significantly in understanding what that would look like.
Replaced the rot13 in your comment with spoiler tags. (Accessible via >! in the WYSIWYG editor)
Yep, I think these three perspectives roughly cover why I think it might have been a good idea. I also think that a good number of people we now think of as having had a large impact on x-risk and who were kind of similar to rationalists (e.g. some of the Manhattan Project scientists) had that impact because they participated in that effort (and the followup cold-war period) for roughly the three reasons you cite.