Working independently on making AI systems reason safely about decision theory and acausal interactions, collaborating with Caspar Oesterheld and Emery Cooper.
I try to check the EA Forum very infrequently. If you wanna get in touch, you can use my admonymous link and leave your email address there, so I can reply to you! (You have to include contact details in the text field or else I can't reply.)
You can also just send me thoughts and questions anonymously!
Extreme nitpick, but you mean the optimizer's curse, not the winner's curse. The winner's curse is that when you win an auction, you should expect to have overpaid (similar dynamics to the optimizer's curse though.) The optimizer's curse is really interesting and worth a read IMO! Doesn't come from worries with p-hacking but applies even when the data you look at is fair and unbiased. IIRC due to the distribution of random errors but I could be wrong.
Hi! I’m looking for help with a project. If you’re interested or know someone who might be, it would be really great if you let me know/share. I'll check the forum forum for dms.
2. Be a saint and help with acausal research by doing tedious manual labor and getting little in return
We also need help with various grindy tasks that aren’t super helpful for learning, e.g. turning pdfs with equations etc. into sensible txts to feed to LLMs. If you’re motivated to help with that, we would be extremely grateful.
Yes, you're totally right that I was just speaking about the range and not the expectation! That's part of the reason why I said none of the points I made are decisive for working on s-risk. I was only providing arguments against the position that the range is symmetric, which I often see people take.
I don't think all people in the replies were arguing that Ben's initial post was okay and deanonymizing Alice and or Chloe would be bad (which I think you would call a double standard, which I'm not commenting on right now). Some probably do but some probably think that Ben's initial post was bad and that deanonymizing Alice and or Chloe would also be bad and that we shouldn't try to correct one bad with another bad, which doesn't look like a double standard to me.
Oh man, tough situation, and also congrats and this sounds awesome and admiration that you're thinking about this question.
As other commenters, I don't know the first thing about patents. Have you talked to a lawyer, including to figure out whether you can patent in a way that doesn't involve the Tech Transfer office (so much)?
Not sure about the claim but possible! I certainly wouldn't say no to something automatic. But I think if setting it yourself is easy enough, it would still get a bunch of the value! I think if the feature was implemented in a similar way to in-line commenting on LessWrong, where you just hover over the correct line and it offers you a bookmark-button that you just need to click, that would be low-friction enough for people like me to use it. (I think anything that's two-click might be too much friction)
Within-post bookmarks
I often start posts but they are too long to read them in one go and the fact that I have to do that (or forever forget where I am) creates a big ugh field for me. Solution: Within-post bookmarks! I think it would be amazing if we could mark where we are in a post and the next time, we can just click to get ourselves back there!
(FWIW, I think that's a major feature of printed media, which I have much less ugh feelings about reading. You can always put it away without it being annoying later on.)
I agree with this. It seems quite hard to implement well unfortunately. Asking if someone wants to hear some (negative) feedback can make it really hard for the other person to say no and already does some of the damage, so in some sense already takes away from it being truly consensual. There probably is some way to do this skillfully but it seems hard/if there is a way that just works and is easy to apply, I don't know it. That said, I think asking someone if there wanna hear some feedback and if now is a good time is usually better than nothing.
(That said, we might disagree on the details of in which cases non-consensual feedback is fine.)
Interesting. I don't think I've made this experience (much - I had this kind of feedback once in 2019). Unless I just can't think of it right now (very possible, I'm very forgetful and easily miss obvious things), I don't think people give me much feedback at all. I wonder if some of the difference in what we emphasise comes from a difference in how people treat us based on demographics etc. (I'm a small woman while Nathan is a tall man. I think my conversation style also projects less perceived confidence than his. I would expect most people to expect me to be more sensitive.)
So maybe one unintuitive takeaway could be "offer marginally more feedback to people who most people based on a shallow impression wouldn't think can take it; be marginally more careful with feedback to people who most people based on a shallow impression would think can take it."
edit: Some context is that I wrote this post as a reaction to being frustrated over the years with concrete instances of people not sharing important negative feedback and finding it a bit crazy that people don't do so (not in they are crazy but it's crazy that the world works that way) - some of this is second-hand knowledge though.
I agree that gentle honesty usually > brutal honesty! I agree that this is important and some people would actually do better by giving (negative) feedback less often and more carefully. Thanks for clarifying!
I just wanted to ask for brutal honesty for me specifically because I wanted to lower the amount of effort necessary to give me feedback and push towards clarity whenever there's a trade-off between clarity and being gentle - but just for giving feedback to me in particular. I don't endorse universally doing that for everyone.
My current regime:
link, not amazon) (roughly 1x week)amazon only has with K3 now) (roughly 2x week)link) (2x/3x a day)link) (1x day) (Gives me digestion issues if I don't dissolve it with food)link) (Possibly gives me digestions issues, ~1x day)link) with D2, K, Zinc, Magnesium Oxide (half the pill ~3x week)I think B12 is basically a must if you're vegan and D3 a no-brainer I think. Not so sure about the others. If you want to supplement Magnesium and Calcium, you should pay attention to the form, e.g. magnesium oxide does nothing apart from worsening your digestion (unless you have constipation.)
Ideally, you want to take minerals apart from each other and after meals but probably doing whatever makes you actually take stuff is best and it's easier to take everything at once/to just take a multisupplement.
For travel and colds only
link), 10mg (take many within the first 24 hours of getting a cold. Don't chew and just let it melt.)Dosage is very confusing here. I think the studies that found that zinc might help with the length of colds used around 90mg or something but maximum RDA is half that.
If you take zinc daily, it's important to also supplement a bit of copper
I also tried:
link) with vitamin C. (Possibly gave me heartburn)link) (gave me digestion issues)If you want to supplement these, they are possibly best on an empty stomach after getting up but again, probably whatever thing people actually stick to is best.
Things I might add/swap some of the above out for:
4, which looks pretty good but isn't super easily available. Also considering1but it has a weird ingredient list I can't easily interpret)Iron is probably pretty important for many people. I get regular iron tests and didn't need it and it's bad to oversupplement iron, also, but FWIW, I expect that I'll have to start taking iron because I started menstruating again.
Things I test for ~twice a year via https://thriva.co/
Would be excited to hear thoughts/feedback if others have some :)
(Haven't been on this regime for long and am a bit loose with it, e.g. just travelled for 3 weeks and supplmented ~nothing during that time)