Posts
Comments
That's true if you live in solidly blue or red state, but then why not vote for a third party candidate more aligned to your convictions? Or not voting at all, saving time?
Maybe the Placebo effect, all medications have affect the patient (even if it does nothing) so you can not prove a medicament does not work without a control group using Placebo to make the claim falsifiable.
I'm not sure an intelligence explosion can happen without significant speed or computational power improvements.
I guess it boils down to what happens if you let human-level intelligence self-modify without modifying the hardware (a.k.a how much human intelligence is optimised). Until now the ratio results to computational power used in significantly in favor of humans compared to I.A but the later is improving fast, and you don't need an I.A to be as versatile as human. Is there any work on what the limit on optimisation for intelligence?
It looks like a nitpick since hardware capacity is increasing steadily and will soon exceed the capacities of the human brain, but it is a lot easier to prevent intelligence explosion by putting a limit on the computational power.
Found the ideas in the article nicely organised, and the paragraph about how EA is financed was a good idea.
Reading it left me a very different feeling compared to your older articles who tended to push my "crank detector" buttons, is that just you "improving" your style (by my standard) or rather an adaptation to a different venue?
Idea that might or might be relevant depending on how smart / advanced your group is.
You could introduce some advanced statistical methods and use it to derive results from everyday life, a la Bayes and mammography.
If you can show some interesting or counter intuitive results (that you can't obtain with intuition) it would give the affective experience you want, and if they want to do scientific research, the more they know about statistics the better.
Statistics are also a good entry door for rationalist thinking.
I am aware that very negative consequences are possible, even likely, especially if you go the whole way (aka save everyone at any cost). My stance is that the current situation is not optimal, and that trying incremental / small scale changes to see whether it makes the situation any better (or worse). Admittedly the ways it could go wrong are multiples.
If you give incentives to unproductive people to become productive, but you don't give incentives to productive people to remain productive, the winning strategy for people is to have swings of productivity.
If working people can afford more luxury that non-working one, this gives incentive to people starting being productive and staying so. Another incentives that would probably exist (at least in the first generations) is the peer-pressure, not working being low-status.
Generally, whenever you have a cool idea that would work well for the current situation, you should think about how the situation will change when people start adapting to the new rules and optimizing for them. Because sooner or later someone will.
Yeah, impossibility to predict long term evolution is the biggest flaw of basic universal income and the like. But this is true for any significant change. That's why we should be very careful about policies changes, but immobilsm is not the thing to do (in my opinion).
Again I am not highly confident that my opinion is the good one.
(answer to your other message)
The difference between Sweden (Denmark and France also fit the bill) and eastern European countries is that the former have an extensive welfare system, but apart from that have a capitalist economy while this not the case for the later.
For example France (the one I know the more about), if you are single and have never worked there is a "living wage" of approx 500 euros per month (only if you are more than 25 for some reason), help for housing going from 90 to ~150 euros month. Free healthcare, free public transport. If you have kids you get more help and free education but it is harder to live without working.
On the other side France is a market economy with free trade, very few state monopolies and wealth is owned by the capital.
Do you think that trying could have considerable costs? Russia tried communism, that... didn't turn out well.
It could, incremental changes, or doing it on a smaller case would mitigate the costs. A "partial" basic income already exist in several European countries, where even when not contributing to society you are given enough to subsist. The results are not too bad so far.
Why new? That's precisely how the current equilibrium works (where advantages == money).
You are right, it would just be different jobs having the most value
Why capitalistic? In your black-and-white picture that would be true for all human societies except for socialist ones. Under capitalism you could at least live off your capital if/when you have some.
Is any system where people are automatically given subsistence socialist? Because it is the only thing I have talked about.
You didn't answer the question.
Money, but with a cost for not being a producer smaller than today (aka no comfort rather than no subsistence)
So why would anyone come to unclog your toilet?
For money, same as today
Maybe if you'd give subsistence to everyone (basic income for example) and let people produce in exchange for "more", the system would still be viable.
And do you have reasons to believe that would be so -- besides "maybe"?
No, that's why I'd like to see it tried. Nordic countries seems to be headed in that direction, we'll see how it goes.
Well, until their toilet clogged and stayed clogged because most plumbers became painters and the rest just went fishing. And until they got sick and found out that the line to see one of the few doctors left is a couple of months. And until the buses stopped running because being a bus mechanic is not such a great job and there are not enough guys who are willing to do it just for fun...
One possibility is too find a new equilibrium where the least attractive a job is, the better the advantages for doing it (since people would be ready to pay more to have it done at your place).
I would be fine with giving unproductive persons incentives so they become productive
In money or bullets?
You forgot the second part :
But then you have the question at how much incentive is ethically justified.
This is already how it works. And In a perfect capitalistic society, you have a choice between working or starving (except if someone is willing to help you), this is not much better than bullets.
I would go for less incentives that in our current society personally.
In the context of a capitalist society there is a common assumption that "the market" will automagically generate the supply
In the current system people produce goods for their subsistence. Maybe if you'd give subsistence to everyone (basic income for example) and let people produce in exchange for "more", the system would still be viable.
The advantages are nobody left out, more flexibility in your work, people doing what they like (more artist and stuff), not having to work to survive (that counts for some). It would increase the happiness of the persons concerned The disadvantages are a net loss of production compared to the current systems and the producers of good being worse off. Maybe the trade off is not worth it, I'd like to have it tried just to check.
If "not at all" won't you have issues with e.g. the criminal justice system?
I am indecisive, even if they are not responsible, criminals are harmful for the rest of the population so imprisonment can be necessary. However the justice system should be focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment.
Your question made me think, coming from that one could perfectly argue that since people not doing anything are harmful to the rest of the society (technically they are taking money from the productive part) so they should be forced to be productive.
Bearing that, I would be fine with giving unproductive persons incentives so they become productive. But then you have the question at how much incentive is ethically justified.
Thank you for the feedback. Unfortunately it looks like I have not been able to express myself clearly.
It was not supposed to explain anything but rather gives one point I find not stressed enough, I am aware that it does not sum up politics or gives a full distinction between political side.
That's a normative, not a descriptive claim.
Fair enough, this is only my own biased opinion. It is indeed generic, I am still unsure if my position should be "mostly not responsible" or "not responsible at all" depending on which model about free will is correct.
For how long?
Wealth is produced, and the money do not disappear (does it actually? my understanding of economy is pretty basic) when you give it out since they spend it as consumer the same way the people you take it from would do.
I don't see anything "running out" in the few socialist countries out there.
a common argument is
It might well be a common argument, but the correct question is whether it's a valid argument.
I do think it is a valid arguments (I might be wrong of course), many studies have highlighted the effect of education, parents, genes, environment, etc. So I find it unfair to blame someone for its problems since there are too many element to consider to give an accurate judgement.
Using a less sympathetic expression this is also known as the forced redistribution of wealth.
I don't like the idea of forced redistribution of wealth (taxes, namely), but in my opinion having a part of the population living in horrible conditions if not outright starving is worse, whether they deserve it or not.
I'd wager there is enough money in the first world to give everyone a "decent" life (admittedly depends on your definition of decent, let's say a shelter, food, education, health care and some leftovers for whatever you want to do). It is already implemented in various country and the States are not so far off in their own way so it is doable. However it is probably not be the optimal path in the long run for economic growth, I think if it is worth it (low confidence though).
(for the ideological turing test)
I have tried to make my argument as neutral as possible, giving both sides of the arguments and avoiding depreciating any,
Let's try from both directions then (personally am a leftist).
Left side, I think so, I definitely think societal influence (amongst other things out of the individual power such as genetics) trumps individual choices, I also saw this opinion amongst friends and intellectuals so I am not alone in this, not everybody on the left think like this though.
Right side, my model of the right is not as good as I'd like, but i have seen it expressed in various places. Again it does not concern all the rightists neither is the main point for everyone.
Apparently I have not made my point clear enough. I am indeed simplifying, "everything is due do society" and "everything is due to individuals" are the both ends but you can be anywhere in the spectrum. This is also only one point among others, probably not the main one, defining identity politics (as you told it), and surely not every leftist/rightist will have the view I give him or is even concerned by the concept.
If i take your example about the person on government benefits with no skills, a common argument is that the fact that he had poor parents, grew in a bad neighbourhood or was discriminated against is one if not the main reason he has trouble acquiring skills or finding a job, then he should not be held responsible and left alone.
I consider myself leftist (by European standard). I do think success mostly depends on things beyond the individual and that we anyway ought to help everyone, even if someone are the only one to blame for his misery (i also buy this civilized thing).
Sorry but I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about, could you develop your point?
One major difference between left and right is the stance on personal responsibility.
Leftist intellectuals (tends to) think society influence trumps individual capabilities, so people are not responsible for their misfortunes and deserve to be helped. Whereas Rightist have the opposite view (related).
This seems trivial, especially in hindsight. But I hardly ever see it mentioned and in most discussions the right side treat the left as foolish and irrational and the left thinks right people are self-interested and evil rather than simply having a different philosophical opinion.
I guess this is part of the bigger picture on political discourse, it is always easier to dehumanise an opponent than to admit is point is as valid as ours.
Group are very fluid entities, and can be defined by pretty much any parameter, which make your statement a bit vague. But even without considering that, there are shortcomings in your theory.
On an individual point of view, being biased towards one group will reduce your own possibilities, it will also reduce the incentives for your group to adapt and better itself. To be fair, it has nothing do with your theory, but still is worth saying imo
Your proposition could also be interpreted has a prisoner dilemna, with each group as a player, not being biased is to cooperate and be biased is to defect. The rational decision for every group is to defect, but everyone would be better if everyone is cooperating. One solution is to have a higher authority impose cooperation, with non-discrimination laws for example.
If one is perfectly rational (omniscience would even be better), yes, otherwise I do not think it is a good idea for a lot of reasons. Just on the top of my head :
It is very hard to be accurate, let alone objective, when analysing "impact on society" or "quality of character", and the result is dependent on the criteria used.
When there is a big variability within a group (race, genre or whatever), statistics are not very useful and you should end up with a better model by getting to know the person.
Anchoring effect : People are bad at updating evidence when given a first information, there are already enough problems with stereotypes without making it official.
Given a set of parameters, there would be strong incentives to neglect others parameters or to game the system.
Personal responsibility : One qualities depends on a lot things, what are we taking into account? Nature? Nurture? Nothing?
I am confused about free will. I tried to read about it (notably from the sequences) but am still not convinced.
I make choices, all the time, sure, but why do I chose one solution in particular?
My answer would be the sum of my knoledge and past experiences (nurture) and my genome (nature), with quantum randomness playing a role as well, but I can't see where does free will intervene.
It feels like there is something basic I don't understand, but I can't grasp it.
I am somewhat new to LW, so I only know the "eternal september" period.
Even tough the contributions and the comments do not have the same quality as the old content, there are still (in my opinion) some interesting posts and discussions, so I'd prefer not archive LW.
The use of LW as focal point would really interest me since I am a bit lost in the diaspora, the other two points are also good and deserve to be implemented.