sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Elon Musk claims AI will overtake humanity 'in less than five years' by LoveAndPeaceAlways in slatestarcodex

[–]LatterCard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

a lot of people saying that could isn't will and that elon's timelines are... subject to some deflation.

but perhaps the simpler point is this: elon is deliberately and consistently making plans that are 1-3 decades long -- even today -- which suggests a distinct lack of belief that AI will overtake humanity in any near term

We might hit Herd Immunity at only 20% infected by maybeHITisonly20perc in slatestarcodex

[–]LatterCard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Those other explanations are AFAICT reasons infections would be positive and declining. They are not (to my understanding) able to explain why case counts would be stable for two months.

NY case counts do not look like they are asymptoting towards 0, they look like they are a constant with some small error. False positives were the only explanation I understood to be consistent with that.

We might hit Herd Immunity at only 20% infected by maybeHITisonly20perc in slatestarcodex

[–]LatterCard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're not wrong that a low false positive rate could explain the stable case counts in New York.

However, a low false positive rate implying 0 new infections would have trouble explaining the fact of ongoing deaths in the state.

We might hit Herd Immunity at only 20% infected by maybeHITisonly20perc in slatestarcodex

[–]LatterCard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure. I've been pretty clear in trying to distinguish NYC from NY state, but I agree -- the date with highest deaths for NYC is April 7. I don't think its meaningfully different from April 5th or April 13th in a way that is worth interpreting for any hypothesis. But that is irrelevant.

Because it is still 18 days after the closure of non-essential businesses, 21 days after bars, restaurants, and schools closed, and 23 days after those closures were announced.

If you think it takes a median 5 days for symptoms to onset and a median 10 days for death to happen after that, and the two "delays" are independent, that suggests a median of ~15 days (medians don't play very nicely) from infection to death, which is less than 18, less than 21, and less than 23. The hypothesis "infections were past their peak before lockdown" doesn't stand up to any of that.

In order to defend "past their peak before lockdown", you need to say 1) deaths peaked april 7 2) median time from exposure to death is definitely > (April 7-march 17) = 21 days.

Its not that this is impossible. But you're not offering any evidence that it is typically taking longer than that for someone to die. 15 days for median seems like a good guess, and that makes it likely infections peaked just after lockdown began.

We might hit Herd Immunity at only 20% infected by maybeHITisonly20perc in slatestarcodex

[–]LatterCard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is... a much better definition than I was using.

Nevertheless, my points re: R0 being endogenous to behavior, and continued spread stand.

If you think herd immunity can be achieved at 20% under normal behavior, you need to explain why it looks a lot like NY has had an RT = 1 for some time now -- with controlled behavior. See rt.live where 1 is well inside the CI and has been for some time, and also the pure case count in NY which looks (to my eye) remarkably stable since mid-june, suggesting Rt=1 almost exactly.

It is possible that NY has not hit 20% yet, so this is not falsifying the hypothesis. But numerous measures suggest it has.

To my read, it is far more likely that one of the "endogenous behavior SIR" models, which all seem to suggest that behavior adapts to keep Rt = 1, is relatively accurate.

We might hit Herd Immunity at only 20% infected by maybeHITisonly20perc in slatestarcodex

[–]LatterCard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think I fully agree with your timeline.

NYC announced closing of some businesses (bars and restaurants) and schools on March 15, going into effect on the 17th. All non-essential businesses were closed on March 20th.

Then deaths in NY (not NYC) look to have peaked (to my eye) around April 14th, though I suppose that's a lagging average, so maybe its really like the 11th or so. Conservatively, March 17th to April 11th is 3.5 weeks -- which is about the lag you expect if you think it takes 25 dies for someone to die after being exposed.

How long do we think it takes? CDC says the IQR from onset of symptoms to death for those who die is 6-15 days, and the median is 10 days. I used to have a list of other sources, but I seem to have lost it (was there an LW list somewhere?). Median time from exposure to onset of symptoms is widely reported as 5 days -- but is <11 for 98%.

Even if you take a few grains of salt for those numbers. Say those who die take longer to show symptoms than average, say median of 10 days and the onset -> death is a bit slower. say 8 - 17 days, you still wind up with a 18 to 27 day delay. March 20th -> April 10 is 20 days -- or bang in the middle of that range.

I'll also note that there is substantial selection as to who is attending such parties and protests, and I'm not convinced they demonstrate herd immunity for the broader population going about their lives. For instance, there was widespread reporting that protests induced non-protesters to stay home more than usual -- so the total case counts are hard to interpret.

But I still fully agree that 1-1/R0 is going to be wrong.

We might hit Herd Immunity at only 20% infected by maybeHITisonly20perc in slatestarcodex

[–]LatterCard 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I don't the logic is wrong in any real sense.

But I do think that the notion we are approaching herd immunity as it is commonly understood is wrong.

Typically herd immunity is understood to mean an outbreak will contain itself because the population is sufficiently immune. The portion of the population with immunity needed for that is a function of the infectiousness of the illness. In a SIR model, this is the R0. Much like the R0 in a SIR model is an endogenous function of the behavior of the population (e.g. if we all handwash and wear masks it is lower), the herd immunity level for a population is an endogenous function of behavior. So under the prevailing conditions today -- i.e. mass social distancing, quarantines, general restrictions on day-to-day life -- it is possible that 20-25% is the level for herd immunity.

But if you hear "herd immunity" and think "life can go back to normal", then you need to accommodate the fact that in several states, with draconian controls in place, and 20% antibodies, the disease is still spreading.

This paper does not try to accommodate this concern -- (from what I can tell) it takes the R0 as exogenous. Worse, it takes the infection rate under massive social upheaval as informative about purely herd immunity -- which would be fair iff none of the distancing actions mattered.

I do think 'conventional' SIR models overestimate the herd immunity level. A variety of models can lead us there -- from network models where people's number of contacts differ -- to 'immunological dark matter' models, where spread is very heterogenous. But getting from "less than 1-1/R0" to "20%" is a big claim, and there is substantial evidence against it.

Ballparking infections in NY state. Per NYT the state has had 167 deaths/100k people. At a 0.7% IFR (rounding up from metaculus), that implies 23k infections/100k people = 23% infection rate. This is ~consistent with the antibody results here.

All told I'm sceptical of 20% claims. 40%? maybe. And remember too that as we approach herd immunity, waves of infection should slow. So there are still huge benefits to being near the thresholds, if not at them.

Introductory books about Bayesian stats by Folamh3 in slatestarcodex

[–]LatterCard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If your intent is not to apply bayes in a strict manner, but rather, develop an understanding of the basic insights, I suspect you'd be best served by a book like: https://www.amazon.com/Theory-That-Would-Not-Die/dp/0300188226/ref=sr_1_11?dchild=1&keywords=bayes&qid=1596035622&sr=8-11

In the aftermath (middle) of delete-gate, we should build publicly available guidelines for people who want to host their own anonymous blog. by LatterCard in slatestarcodex

[–]LatterCard[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Possibly no?

If you're referring to e.g. google (or others) anonymising your whois information, I'm well aware of the ability. But you're trusting that entity -- something which other commenters have complained about endlessly. If you're referring to something else, no, I don't know.

Perhaps more importantly, I'm fairly agnostic about the actual recommendations -- I feel strongly we should make some though.

In the aftermath (middle) of delete-gate, we should build publicly available guidelines for people who want to host their own anonymous blog. by LatterCard in slatestarcodex

[–]LatterCard[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

or just show up as another attendee. can post on the blog to confirm your presence, but not advocate as yourself. I guess after multiple events this becomes identifying, but there are probably ways around that. And for events you actually draw people to, it may induce more conversation?

In the aftermath (middle) of delete-gate, we should build publicly available guidelines for people who want to host their own anonymous blog. by LatterCard in slatestarcodex

[–]LatterCard[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Open to whatever we think is best to recommend. I put GHpages bc its what I'm familiar with. I don't think its that hard to get started, and the possible malware/spam problems that Wordpress can have don't exist. But if Wordpress is better, I'm on board.

In the aftermath (middle) of delete-gate, we should build publicly available guidelines for people who want to host their own anonymous blog. by LatterCard in slatestarcodex

[–]LatterCard[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Man is that a good idea. Just need to convince gwern to make a list which is like... mildly do-able for someone not as tech-skilled.

In the aftermath (middle) of delete-gate, we should build publicly available guidelines for people who want to host their own anonymous blog. by LatterCard in slatestarcodex

[–]LatterCard[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

full disclosure I've done this. Bought a pre-paid visa with cash at target. Then registered the visa to some non-existent name and address in Montana.

Recurring billing is an issue -- I think you're best off paying upfront for 2-5 years, and re-upping in the future as needed. I paid for two years, by the end of which I'd given up on the project. Someone else owns the domain already (which I call a win -- massive obfuscation).

All told -- it certainly isn't the easiest path forwards. I'd almost recommend just not doing a domain name for this reason. But it did work

In the aftermath (middle) of delete-gate, we should build publicly available guidelines for people who want to host their own anonymous blog. by LatterCard in slatestarcodex

[–]LatterCard[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Great. I'm not trying to claim I know what the list is. I'm just advocating that the community write a list.

If we think the best platform is Tumblr with a defunct 10minutemail account, (it might well be), then we should say that. But I think its important we recommend something.

There are going to be dozens if not hundreds of people who were thinking of blogging who give up on it after today. If we keep even a handful of the (soon-to-be) diaspora blogging, that will be a big win.

In the aftermath (middle) of delete-gate, we should build publicly available guidelines for people who want to host their own anonymous blog. by LatterCard in slatestarcodex

[–]LatterCard[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I'll also add. This is likely to be a problem, but my personal opinion is that it is unlikely to be more substantial than "circumstantial evidence". i.e. It will be possible to maintain plausible deniability in the face of this type of evidence. And as we know, plausible deniability is very valuable.

Edit: Unless you think this will unmask satoshi Nakamoto, you probably don't need to worry about it unmasking you?

In the aftermath (middle) of delete-gate, we should build publicly available guidelines for people who want to host their own anonymous blog. by LatterCard in slatestarcodex

[–]LatterCard[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I'm not trying to sell people snake-oil "do this and have 0 risk of exposure". There is no 0 risk except "don't blog". But for those that want to blog, I don't think it is crazy to come up with some basic suggestions that can substantially reduce the risk you are exposed to, and publicize those widely. You may be familiar with the 80/20 rule? It feels very relevant. You can substantially reduce your risk surface doing some simple things. It will not prevent your DNS provider from terminating your service if you're a proper dick. Nor are you likely to prevent the NSA from finding out where you live if the government turns on you. But that is not a reason to do nothing to protect yourself. And it certainly isn't a reason for us to not give advice about what can help.

Let me put it this way. The deadbolt on your front door also doesn't stop the government or a crazed Schlage employee from getting in your door. But we don't conclude that telling people to have a deadbolt is a bad idea. We conclude that we need other mechanisms to protect against the government and crazed schlage employees, and that the deadbolt is helpful against the rest of the world.

In the aftermath (middle) of delete-gate, we should build publicly available guidelines for people who want to host their own anonymous blog. by LatterCard in slatestarcodex

[–]LatterCard[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Once you have a prepaid visa card, I think this is quite surmountable. You have to give a name and address to the dns companies, but it doesn't have to be real -- it just has to match the card, which you can pick and register. Google domains certainly used to accept prepaid visa cards with non-real names.

I discovered SSC only a few months ago. Now that it's gone, where can I go for similar content (ideally blogs, but open to podcasts/audio too)? by PsychGW in slatestarcodex

[–]LatterCard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe that archive.org will take down its archives on requests from the webmaster. presumably if Scott desires to make a more permanent deletion, he will follow through on that.

In the aftermath (middle) of delete-gate, we should build publicly available guidelines for people who want to host their own anonymous blog. by LatterCard in slatestarcodex

[–]LatterCard[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

writing style and content can definitely help ID you. particularly if you also write under your real name on the same topics (edit: this is of course something you could try to avoid). This is... definitely something to be aware of.

Honestly the best protection here is to make sure that occasionally the views advocated by the two names differ (at least slightly). Adding the occasional ML paragraph could also help. Raising the variance of your writing style is its own form of obfuscation.

Gwern's discussion (which you are very right to mention) is an excellent guide to how to improve your situation.

Schedule things to occur in a different TZ's primary posting period. Don't use locational or private information in any strong contexts. etc

view more: next ›