Welcome! I hope you will enjoy the things you find here!
Mini-feature announcement I didn’t have anywhere else to put: Links to Metaculus forecasting questions now have hover-previews that allow you to see the state of the prediction on metaculus. See this link for an example.
Note: This post was originally posted to the DeepMind blog, so presumably the target audience is a broader audience of Machine Learning researchers and people in that broad orbit. I pinged Vika about crossposting it because it also seemed like a good reference post that I expected would get linked to a bunch more frequently if it was available on LessWrong and the AIAF.
Note: We don’t have formal rules about this since this has never come up, but I think questions should actually have something concrete about the question in the title, and should avoid being names something like “True or False” or “Is it true?” or anything in that reference class.
You can remove tags by downvoting their relevance below 1.
Promoted to curated. My engagement with this post was interesting, I went from “this post makes a trivial point” to “this post is obviously wrong” to “I am really confused by this post” to “this post is obviously right and makes some counterintuitive claims”. I am not really sure what I initially thought this post was saying, so maybe I just confused myself, but I do think this journey of mine is pretty significant evidence that the post said something interesting.
I also really like having a reference that covers how to deal with 50% predictions pretty comprehensively, which this post does.
My guess is that it was an accident. Fixed it for the author.
(Note: I already created the tag)
I am worried about “Frameworks” being too broad. Like, isn’t every model a framework of some kind?
Seems like a great idea, I created it here: https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/financial-investing
Promoted to curated: This is a technique I’ve seen mentioned in a bunch of places, but I haven’t seen a good writeup for it, and I found it quite valuable to read.
Yeah, I really don’t know yet how we should handle hierarchical tagging. My current model is that “That Alien Message” should just be tagged both AI Alignment and AI Boxing, and that we should be hesitant to have too much formal hierarchy in the tags, since I expect that most relationships will turn out to be only “almost hierarchical” in that it’s not literally always the case the we would want to apply both tags together, and being forced to always have them come in a package is I think pretty costly.
I do think the description of the AI Boxing tag should link to the AI Alignment tag, so that should be edited in. And in general related tags should link to each other a lot, to make it easier to discover content that way.
“Rationality” is part of a special class of 5 tags that are designed to be general, and be primarily used for broad filtering purposes (i.e. the 5 core tags). Agree that it would be far too broad for most tags.
Re. “Problem-Solving Tactics”: I agree that something in that space is good. We currently have the “Techniques” tag, which is pretty similar to that, so I added it to that tag. Do you think we want something again more specific than that?
Hmm, I am worried that tons of people have now built desktop-specific habits on how they deal with voting that this would upset quite a bit (probably including me). But I will think about it.
I read the first one a while ago and have been thinking about it a good bit when working on the tagging system.
Haven’t read the second one. Will check it out.
Yep, it didn’t seem worth the cost of the chilling effects that were discussed in this thread.
Huh, okay. Sorry for the weird experience!
You do currently have the markdown editor activated, which gets rid of all formatting options, so you not getting it right now wouldn’t surprise me. But you should have gotten them before you activated the markdown editor.
The article says:
Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus
It is so effective at attaching to human cells that the researchers said the spike proteins were the result of natural selection and not genetic engineering.
I think the article just says that the virus did not undergo genetic engineering or gain-of-function research, which is also what Jim says above.
Well, this comment sure seems to not have aged well. Did this bet ever pay out and resolve?