I am an active github R contributor and stackoverflow R contributor and I would be willing to coordinate. Send me an email: rkrzyz at gmail
robertzk
Karma: 465
We Inspected Every Head In GPT-2 Small using SAEs So You Don’t Have To
Training Process Transparency through Gradient Interpretability: Early experiments on toy language models
The rationalist’s checklist
Getting up to Speed on the Speed Prior in 2022
It had a similar effect on me.
I didn’t learn how to form any study habits in college, and it really hurt me in graduate school. It concerns my development as a kid because I was unfortunate enough to graduate at 16. I tricked my parents and myself by telling them I was “studying” all the time on the computer, even though I was mostly recreationally programming and internet browsing, which I viewed as superior to studying. Most undergraduate work is rote and unchallenging, so I would usually procrastinate to the last moment without much detriment to my grades. Being much younger than my classmates means I didn’t have any peer guidance in the formation of study habits, either.
Such is the woe of “child prodigies.” Some students that zip through school have high intelligence and rationality (and extremely careful parents), and these usually earn a spot in history books.
p/s/a: Going up to a girl pretty much anywhere in public and saying something like “I thought you looked cute and wanted to meet you” actually works if your body language is in order. If this seems too scary, going on Chatroulette or Omegle and being vaguely interesting also works, and I know people who have gotten married from meeting this way.
p/s/a: Vitamin D supplements can take you from depressed zombie to functioning human being in one week.
For what it’s worth, I’ve worked on a project and had lunch with Conway, and your ideas seem more prescient than his. But being a mathematician, I know people who are in turn far above Conway’s level.
The question of the subject is too dense and should be partitioned. Some ideas for auxiliary questions:
Do there exists attempts at classifications of parenting styles? (So that we may not re-invent tread tracks)
Is parenting or childrearing an activity that supports the existence of relevant goals? Do there exist relevant values? Or is parenting better approached as a passive activity sans evaluation with no winners or losers? (So that we may affirm this question is worth answering)
Given affirmative answers to the above questions (and having achieved some epistemic rationality in this domain), and assuming a choice of parenting style(s) and/or values, what specific steps can be taken to activate those values in meatspace (so that we may gain instrumental rationality in this domain)?
The above kind of direct onslaught will likely lead to overzealous suggestion, so we can also consider stepping back and asking: what are some strategies for generating candidate actions without concurrently assuming premature preferences? [1]
Potential answers to the above queries will always be accompanied with degrees of uncertainty. How do we determine when to stop researching and move towards implementation? How does the domain of parenting differ here from the general solution (productivity / to-do systems like GTD or strategical thinking )?
Are there tangible contributions that can be made in the general case? If we went through this much work and make significant progress in answering some of these questions, and we have been surprised by some of the answers, is it our duty to make an attempt to inform other parents? What are the best ways of doing so? Joining a local club or school district assembly? A blog? Submitting to an editorial? Your lullaby above is wonderful and could make some serious universe-changing modifications to reality (e.g., a child grows up to assume a mathematical or scientific vocation) but we do not feel the wailing alarm in our head that assigns it the appropriate significance. Effective parenting is one of the most accessible optimization processes Joe Schmoe has access to, so how can we make meta-improvements on a large scale?
If you are serious in your attempt to answer the original query, I recommend selecting one of the above questions or something even finer-grained and re-submitting to Discussion. (By the way, I am interested.)
[1] Say that a naive answer is the banal “brainstorm,” to make a list of relevant large-scale projects to relevant values (e.g., figure out a consistent system of reminding my kids to be compassionate to those around them (name 3 examples of specific compassionate actions) if we value empathy and mindfulness). Then a follow-up question is to locate where your candidate actions are in behaviorspace for this domain: collate several “brainstorm” lists by independent parents who seem to have similar values and styles. Are there academic resources? Potential analytics to be done? Are there quantitive variables that correlate to success? Can we data-mine historical sources over these variables? (e.g., if we are determining whether to raise kids vegetarian or omnivore, what do long-term studies in the literature say about follow-up health?)
In the mathematical theory of Galois representations, a choice of algebraic closure of the rationals and an embedding of this algebraic closure in the complex numbers (e.g. section 5) is usually necessary to frame the background setting, but I never hear “the algebraic closure” or “the embedding,” instead “an algebraic closure” and “an embedding.” Thus I never forget that a choice has to be made and that this choice is not necessarily obvious. This is an example from mathematics where careful language is helpful in tracking background assumptions.
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/53122/mathematical-urban-legends
Another urban legend, which I’ve heard told about various mathematicians, and which Misha Polyak self-effacingly tells about himself (and therefore might even be true), is the following:
As a young postdoc, Misha was giving a talk at a prestigious US university about his new diagrammatic formula for a certain finite type invariant, which had 158 terms. A famous (but unnamed) mathematician was sitting, sleeping, in the front row. “Oh dear, he doesn’t like my talk,” thought Misha. But then, just as Misha’s talk was coming to a close, the famous professor wakes with a start. Like a man possessed, the famous professor leaps up out of his chair, and cries, “By golly! That looks exactly like the Grothendieck-Riemann-Roch Theorem!!!” Misha didn’t know what to say. Perhaps, in his sleep, this great professor had simplified Misha’s 158 term diagrammatic formula for a topological invariant, and had discovered a deep mathematical connection with algebraic geometry? It was, after all, not impossible. Misha paced in front of the board silently, not knowing quite how to respond. Should he feign understanding, or admit his own ignorance? Finally, because the tension had become too great to bear, Misha asked in an undertone, “How so, sir?” “Well,” explained the famous professor grandly. “There’s a left hand side to your formula on the left.” “Yes,” agreed Misha meekly. “And a right hand side to your formula on the right.” “Indeed,” agreed Misha. “And you claim that they are equal!” concluded the great professor. “Just like the Grothendieck-Riemann-Roch Theorem!”
I took the survey and could feel my affective heuristics generating random near-the-ballpark numbers.
Given I am a mathematician and have no idea how to actually compute any of those probabilities (or what that would even formally mean, say in a probability measure space), I let those numbers stand without further scrutiny.
Right. Moreover, of all the people who read GabrielDuquette’s comment and know someone that had cancer and went to a faith healer, I imagine only the ones with a story like Jayson_Virisimo’s will post a reply. Failed attempts are not reported. If you are acquaintances with someone that experienced a failed faith healing, you are likely not even aware of it! (If it was successful, they would have lauded it.) An easy Bayesian estimate makes the presence of Jayson_Virisimo’s comment unsurprising.
Given a sufficiently non-zero probability of spontaneous remission, this argument explains my lack of surprise at such a story. This is an important addition to your argument (and, I feel, indeed the crux), because a non-zero probability is not satisfactory. Consider if we had many people posting such claims; with sufficiently low probabilities of spontaneous remission, we would not expect such a density of claims.
I got a frequent LessWrong contributor a programming internship this summer.
I had an existential crisis a few weeks ago that was very helpful. I now fully believe “it’s physics all the way down.” It’s also given me some insights as to how self-awareness arises in physical systems, and made me realize cryonics is trivially workable. I also have an intuitive feel for how humanity is collectively wearing rose-colored glasses, and am very curious what happens when these will get taken off! (In other words, I look forward to the creation of a fully rational agent according to a prescribed utility function.)
This also means I can hardly stand news and movies anymore, because I deconstruct everything. I have no problem maintaining social interactions, but no longer carry any of the standard social obligations. It’s a little eerie, like feeling the matrix.
The possibility of an “adaptation” being in fact an exaptatation or even a spandrel is yet another reason to be incredibly careful about purposing teleology into a discussion about evolutionarily-derived mechanisms.
In other words, productivity need not be confused with busywork, and I suspect this is primarily an artifact of linguistic heuristics (similar brain procedures get lightly activated when you hear “productivity” as when you hear “workout” or “haste” or even “forward march”).
If productivity were a currency, you could say “have I acquired more productons this week than last week with respect to my current goal?” If making your family well off can be achieved by lounging around in the pool splashing each other, then that is high family welfare productivity.
See lukeprog’s How to Beat Procrastination and Algorithm for Beating Procrastination. In particular, try to identify which term(s) in the equation in the latter are problematic for you, then use goal shaping to slowly modify them. (Of course, you could also realize you may not want to do this master’s thesis and switch to a different problem.)
Goal shaping means rewarding yourself for successively more proximate actions to the desired goal (writing your thesis) in behavior-space. For example, rather than beating yourself up over not getting anything done today, you can practice simply opening and closing LaTeX or MatLab (or whatever you need to be doing your research), and do this for ten or twenty minutes. You then eat something you like or pump your fist in the air shouting “YES!” Once you can do this consistently, you can set a goal of writing one line of code or reading half a page. At this point, you can start exploiting the peak-end rule: start rewarding yourself for these tasks at the end rather than trying to enjoy them during the process. Soon your brain will start associating the entire experience with the reward and you will be happy to do them. YMMV.
I agree so much I’m commenting.
To be frank, I question the value of compressing information of this generality, even as a roadmap. For example, “Networking” can easily be expanded into several books (e.g., Dale Carnegie) and “Educating oneself in career-related skills” has almost zero intersection when quantified over all possible careers. If Eliezer had made a “things to know to be a rationalist” post instead of breaking it down into The Sequences, I doubt anyone would have had much use for it.
Maybe you could focus on a particular topic, compile a list of relevant resources you have uncovered, and ask LW for further opinions? In fact, people have done this.