Hide table of contents
An enthusiastic researcher iterating on Squiggle experiments, sweating into a napkin over the intensity.  DALL-E 2

Motivation

The team at QURI has recently released Squiggle, a very new and experimental programming language for probabilistic estimation. We’re curious about what promising use cases it could enable, and we are launching a prize to incentivize people to find this out.

Prize

We offer a $600 first-place prize, a $300 second-place prize, and a $100 third-place prize. The prize will be paid for by the Quantified Uncertainty Research Institute (QURI).

Rules

To enter, first make a public post online between now and September 1, 2022. We encourage you to either post directly or make a link post to either the EA Forum or to LessWrong. Second, complete this form, also before September 1, 2022.

We’ll aim to make decisions by October 1, 2022.

More specifically:

  1. Experiment with Squiggle. Make an interesting model with it or develop a tech prototype or integration using it.
  2. Make a (short is fine) blog post about your experiment. If you post to the EA Forum or LessWrong, others can more easily share their opinions. In your post, if you could include some honest feedback on how you found working with Squiggle, that would be appreciated, but it's not required.
  3. Submit this form with the key details. Submit it by September 1, 2022. 

Support & Feedback

If you’d like feedback or would like to discuss possible projects, please reach out! (via direct message or email.) We’ll invite you to our Slack and can give feedback and advice. Also, feel free to file issues or comments/questions/suggestions on the Squiggle Github page.

Judges

The judges will be Nuño Sempere, Ozzie Gooen, and Quinn Dougherty. The rest of the Squiggle team will also consult. We’ll select winners for their importance, novelty, and presentation.

Ideas

Some ideas, any of which could be taken from the recent post:

Software Ideas

  • Build integrations with other tools. Google Docs, Airtable, Roam Research, Obsidian, Python, other forecasting platforms, etc.
  • Integrate Squiggle in other software platforms or tools. Maybe use it to power an online calculator to return probability distributions instead of numbers.
  • Make open-source React components around probability distributions better visualize the outputs of Squiggle models.
  • Build neat tools on top of Squiggle. For example, Squiggle could help power a node-based graphical editor or a calendar-based time estimation tool. Users might not need to know anything about Squiggle; it would just be used for internal math.
  • Make Observable dashboards that take in real-time data from the web, and use Squiggle to do some simple math on them and return probability distributions or functions. (For instance, see this post that uses Squiggle in Observable.)

Research Ideas

  • Estimate the entire value of the far future over time.
  • Estimate EA funding over time.
  • Convert several of the AI timelines estimates into Squiggle, then use Squiggle to help aggregate them, e.g. Cotra’s report, or Carlsmith’s. Carlsmith’s report mostly uses probabilities, but one could try to use distributions over probabilities representing the range of expert opinion instead.

Some existing tools that use Squiggle (for inspiration)

Comments5


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

This tool converts Guesstimate models into Squiggle models


I think the link should go to https://recursing.github.io/guesstimate_to_squiggle/

Disclaimer: it's very MVP, needs manual tweaking for many models

Sorry, fixed! 

Reminder: Only a few days left for this! Submissions are closed on September 1st.

I'm unsure from this post what the prize criteria are. Like, 'the judges will be assessing based on which entries are the most <what?>'

"We’ll select winners for their importance, novelty, and presentation."

So for me this would be the most hardcore, interesting, valuable or impressive.

Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Ronen Bar
 ·  · 10m read
 · 
"Part one of our challenge is to solve the technical alignment problem, and that’s what everybody focuses on, but part two is: to whose values do you align the system once you’re capable of doing that, and that may turn out to be an even harder problem", Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO (Link).  In this post, I argue that: 1. "To whose values do you align the system" is a critically neglected space I termed “Moral Alignment.” Only a few organizations work for non-humans in this field, with a total budget of 4-5 million USD (not accounting for academic work). The scale of this space couldn’t be any bigger - the intersection between the most revolutionary technology ever and all sentient beings. While tractability remains uncertain, there is some promising positive evidence (See “The Tractability Open Question” section). 2. Given the first point, our movement must attract more resources, talent, and funding to address it. The goal is to value align AI with caring about all sentient beings: humans, animals, and potential future digital minds. In other words, I argue we should invest much more in promoting a sentient-centric AI. The problem What is Moral Alignment? AI alignment focuses on ensuring AI systems act according to human intentions, emphasizing controllability and corrigibility (adaptability to changing human preferences). However, traditional alignment often ignores the ethical implications for all sentient beings. Moral Alignment, as part of the broader AI alignment and AI safety spaces, is a field focused on the values we aim to instill in AI. I argue that our goal should be to ensure AI is a positive force for all sentient beings. Currently, as far as I know, no overarching organization, terms, or community unifies Moral Alignment (MA) as a field with a clear umbrella identity. While specific groups focus individually on animals, humans, or digital minds, such as AI for Animals, which does excellent community-building work around AI and animal welfare while
Relevant opportunities
20
Eva
· · 1m read
33