EA Forum Bot Site
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
ProbabilityEnjoyer1
0
0

I've fully rewritten the spreadsheet tool, available at carlo.app:

The major improvements are:

  • More flexible input format
  • Interactive — histograms update as you edit the spreadsheet (this also means you can collaborate in real time)
  • Overhauled UI with dozens of new features

Other improvements include:

  • Simulations run many times faster — this is especially noticeable for the sensitivity analysis
  • You no longer need to manually type in the result cell coordinate
  • Multiple output variables are now supported
Reply
See in context
by ProbabilityEnjoyer
2 min read 1

76

ForecastingFermi estimateAnnouncements and updates
Frontpage
This is a linkpost for https://usedagger.com/

18 March 2024: I've decided to split the two input formats after all, so Dagger has been replaced by Carlo (spreadsheet) and Probly (programming language). Old URLs  redirect to the appropriate place.

Dagger (usedagger.com) is a new tool for calculations with uncertainty. It uses Monte Carlo simulation.

There are two ways to specify your simulation model:

ℹ️  Each of the two links above has 4 interactive examples. You might want to start there.

Spreadsheet

Example

In this 15-second video, we take a complex existing spreadsheet (100+ rows) from GiveWell and turn it into a Monte Carlo simulation

The sheet already gives us "optimistic/pessimistic" values, so it's as simple as adding one column to specify the distribution as (e.g.) uniform

(Longer version of this video)

Features

Dependency graph

Intuitive and mathematically rigorous sensitivity analysis

Our sensitivity analysis uses Sobol’ global sensitivity indices. The approach and the intuition behind it are explained in more detail here.

ℹ️  You need to enable the sensitivity analysis under "Advanced options"


Summary table

This table exposes the structure of your model by showing the dependency graph as a tree. Similar to Workflowy, you can zoom to any variable, or expand/collapse. 

Probly

Probly feels very like Python, except that any number can also be a probability distribution:

Example

Here's a fuller example of the syntax and resulting output. It's part of a GiveWell CEA of iron and folic acid supplementation.

Distribution support

Probly supports 9 probability distributions. Each can be constructed in multiple ways.

For example, you can construct a normal distribution in 5 ways:

This clickable table shows you everything that's supported, and includes example code:

ℹ️  Shortcut: probly.dev redirects to usedagger.com/probly

Limitations

There are at the moment numerous limitations. A small selection of them:

  • Probly:
    • Doesn’t support the Sobol' sensitivity analysis
    • Doesn't show the dependency graph
  • Spreadsheet
    • There is no UI in Dagger to edit the model. All changes must go via the spreadsheet.
    • The spreadsheet must specify probability distributions in a specific format.
  • All models are public

76

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Mentioned in
Comments1


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
ProbabilityEnjoyer1
0
0

I've fully rewritten the spreadsheet tool, available at carlo.app:

The major improvements are:

  • More flexible input format
  • Interactive — histograms update as you edit the spreadsheet (this also means you can collaborate in real time)
  • Overhauled UI with dozens of new features

Other improvements include:

  • Simulations run many times faster — this is especially noticeable for the sensitivity analysis
  • You no longer need to manually type in the result cell coordinate
  • Multiple output variables are now supported
Reply
More from ProbabilityEnjoyer
42
Carlo: uncertainty analysis in Google Sheets
ProbabilityEnjoyer
· · 1m read
0
0
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 11m read
 · 
Confidence: Medium, underlying data is patchy and relies on a good amount of guesswork, data work involved a fair amount of vibecoding.  Intro:  Tom Davidson has an excellent post explaining the compute bottleneck objection to the software-only intelligence explosion.[1] The rough idea is that AI research requires two inputs: cognitive labor and research compute. If these two inputs are gross complements, then even if there is recursive self-improvement in the amount of cognitive labor directed towards AI research, this process will fizzle as you get bottlenecked by the amount of research compute.  The compute bottleneck objection to the software-only intelligence explosion crucially relies on compute and cognitive labor being gross complements; however, this fact is not at all obvious. You might think compute and cognitive labor are gross substitutes because more labor can substitute for a higher quantity of experiments via more careful experimental design or selection of experiments. Or you might indeed think they are gross complements because eventually, ideas need to be tested out in compute-intensive, experimental verification.  Ideally, we could use empirical evidence to get some clarity on whether compute and cognitive labor are gross complements; however, the existing empirical evidence is weak. The main empirical estimate that is discussed in Tom's article is Oberfield and Raval (2014), which estimates the elasticity of substitution (the standard measure of whether goods are complements or substitutes) between capital and labor in manufacturing plants. It is not clear how well we can extrapolate from manufacturing to AI research.  In this article, we will try to remedy this by estimating the elasticity of substitution between research compute and cognitive labor in frontier AI firms.  Model  Baseline CES in Compute To understand how we estimate the elasticity of substitution, it will be useful to set up a theoretical model of researching better alg
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
Around 1 month ago, I wrote a similar Forum post on the Easterlin Paradox. I decided to take it down because: 1) after useful comments, the method looked a little half-baked; 2) I got in touch with two academics – Profs. Caspar Kaiser and Andrew Oswald – and we are now working on a paper together using a related method.  That blog post actually came to the opposite conclusion, but, as mentioned, I don't think the method was fully thought through.  I'm a little more confident about this work. It essentially summarises my Undergraduate dissertation. You can read a full version here. I'm hoping to publish this somewhere, over the Summer. So all feedback is welcome.  TLDR * Life satisfaction (LS) appears flat over time, despite massive economic growth — the “Easterlin Paradox.” * Some argue that happiness is rising, but we’re reporting it more conservatively — a phenomenon called rescaling. * I test this hypothesis using a large (panel) dataset by asking a simple question: has the emotional impact of life events — e.g., unemployment, new relationships — weakened over time? If happiness scales have stretched, life events should “move the needle” less now than in the past. * That’s exactly what I find: on average, the effect of the average life event on reported happiness has fallen by around 40%. * This result is surprisingly robust to various model specifications. It suggests rescaling is a real phenomenon, and that (under 2 strong assumptions), underlying happiness may be 60% higher than reported happiness. * There are some interesting EA-relevant implications for the merits of material abundance, and the limits to subjective wellbeing data. 1. Background: A Happiness Paradox Here is a claim that I suspect most EAs would agree with: humans today live longer, richer, and healthier lives than any point in history. Yet we seem no happier for it. Self-reported life satisfaction (LS), usually measured on a 0–10 scale, has remained remarkably flat over the last f
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
Crossposted from my blog.  When I started this blog in high school, I did not imagine that I would cause The Daily Show to do an episode about shrimp, containing the following dialogue: > Andres: I was working in investment banking. My wife was helping refugees, and I saw how meaningful her work was. And I decided to do the same. > > Ronny: Oh, so you're helping refugees? > > Andres: Well, not quite. I'm helping shrimp. (Would be a crazy rug pull if, in fact, this did not happen and the dialogue was just pulled out of thin air).   But just a few years after my blog was born, some Daily Show producer came across it. They read my essay on shrimp and thought it would make a good daily show episode. Thus, the Daily Show shrimp episode was born.   I especially love that they bring on an EA critic who is expected to criticize shrimp welfare (Ronny primes her with the declaration “fuck these shrimp”) but even she is on board with the shrimp welfare project. Her reaction to the shrimp welfare project is “hey, that’s great!” In the Bible story of Balaam and Balak, Balak King of Moab was peeved at the Israelites. So he tries to get Balaam, a prophet, to curse the Israelites. Balaam isn’t really on board, but he goes along with it. However, when he tries to curse the Israelites, he accidentally ends up blessing them on grounds that “I must do whatever the Lord says.” This was basically what happened on the Daily Show. They tried to curse shrimp welfare, but they actually ended up blessing it! Rumor has it that behind the scenes, Ronny Chieng declared “What have you done to me? I brought you to curse my enemies, but you have done nothing but bless them!” But the EA critic replied “Must I not speak what the Lord puts in my mouth?”   Chieng by the end was on board with shrimp welfare! There’s not a person in the episode who agrees with the failed shrimp torture apologia of Very Failed Substacker Lyman Shrimp. (I choked up a bit at the closing song about shrimp for s
Relevant opportunities
17
Project Proposal Looking for Feedback: Making Policy Impacts Transparent — A Reasoning Model for Trade, Jobs, and Prices
Echo Huang
· · 9m read
4
4
110
Digital sentience funding opportunities: Support for applied work and research
zdgroff, Longview Philanthropy
· · 4m read
0
0
5
ARENA 6.0 - Call for applicants
James Hindmarch
· · 7m read
0
0
View more