Posts
Comments
There is an Avaaz signature campaign to "Establish National Licensing systems for AGI before it is fully achieved" (started by the director of the Millennium Project, Jerome Glenn) you may want to sign.
I'm not sure how fitting such a petition is for LW, that's why I put it here. If somebody more involved (forum admins, maybe?) thinks it is worth for it to have a real post, please do it.
Agree.
I consider myself a rationalist, but if I were going to recommend this post to anyone, it would be to show how dangerous fanaticism/sectarianism is --and this is not only about Ziz's and Co. actions, also many comments here are kind of scary. It shows how single-thinking and going to the extreme about one's convictions, even if one tries very hard to be correct, often goes extremely badly. We humans are dumb, so just don't take anything too literally or too much to its extreme, take yourself and your thoughts with a bit of salt, be nuanced (at least nuancedly nuanced).
No wonder some people hate or are afraid of rationalist when they see stuff like this... and when they see that this is resurfaced after several years with no apparent reason.
? I don't know Rosencranz.
I'm asking you because you say "Is it the case that the tech would exist without him? I think that's pretty unclear" and this, in my view, depends a lot on the answers to those questions.
Is China doing well in the EV space a bad thing?
The opposite, it is good. But if Musk did not have any influence on it, this diminishes Musk's positive impact in this field, making his impact less positive.
Oh, it is probably my mistake XD I'm also not native. I meant increase, not that it is the maximum it could be, sorry.
About Tesla, do you think it had any influence on China betting hard for EVs?
About SpaceX, do you think it makes a big difference to be 'space-ready' a couple of decades earlier or later?
Sure, we don't know exactly how good EVs are for fighting climate change, but the current view is that they are needed in the context in which we are because they seem better mostly than the other alternatives. [Incidentally, since some time I tend to think that he's probably been vastly less net-good in the past than I previously thought. Not really because of him, but because Chinese companies are beating everyone, including Tesla, with their EVs (and I don't think he's had any influence in China betting hard for EVs, though I might be wrong here); so if Tesla would have not existed, the adoption of EVs would just have been only delayed for few years (and mostly only in the west). So his net-positive contribution -for me and now- seems much lower than it seemed before.] But this, of course, is not what I am asking for.
Maybe Hitler, by sheer chance, killed someone who had been much worse than him. But this would not make him be net-positive in the sense of this question (eg. we'd had other ways to deal with that person -even if the odds that we did are very small).
But probably I have not been clear enough, sure.
Sure, but one can assess it at any point. I'm not asking about whether he will end up being net-positive or net-negative overall in the long run.
I'd agree. But he certainly does not seem to even be trying anymore to have positive impact on solving alignment, no?
Hi, thanks.
I don't see how what you say contradicts that the reach of his actions and opinions have increased. Did you maybe quote the wrong sentence?
For me the conversation in the example sounds artificial, it is obvious that the friend did not get what you mean. If I'd had such conversation, I'd have added something like: "If I go, sure I can pick you up. But I'm not sure when I'll go" (or "I'm not sure if I'd go at all or at what time" if you really are not sure)
I am but puzzle about how your post could wreck someone
when someone does not have the capabilities to face those fears. Even just meditating is dangerous for some people because it makes them face something they are not equipped to face. In order to learn, one must face challenges with the right level of difficulty for them at that point in time. Too easy and there's no learning; too difficult and it is a wall instead of a challenge. If the challenges are psychological or similar, this wall may be something that hurts, only hurts, with no -or minimal- gains.
Thanks. So would you say I am right with the concern about the paper? Or is it fog only for other reasons? [I haven't yet read the link, so I don't yet know what exactly fog in this context means]
I liked the term Computational Kindness a lot! Thanks.
BTW, in the example you give for it and analogous situations it is, in addition, totally inefficient: you know your environment, what is worth visiting/doing and so on, so it is relatively easy to pick the day's program. The visitor, who doesn't know this environment will have a much harder time finding it out. So, it not only "offloads all the effort of coming up with ideas and making decisions to the other person", it greatly increases this effort. I think it is important to note this as well.
In what toddler age span has this worked for your children?
ok. We take our son anyway out of the bet as soon as he wakes up. He sleeps long enough already by himself.
at that point you should just move to something optimized for being easy to get in and out of, like a bed
yes, yes. Exactly. Isn't it much more practical to put her in a bet/mattress on the floor? That's what we do. Just using the mattress from the crib, for example.
Why must she not be able to climb out(/in) of the crib for napping there?
Very interesting!
Obvious question: who wins when the debate is ultra BS Vs ultra BS? Is then the duel back to a rhetoric one?
I'd be really interested in how the kids do in school and in general in their future. It seems to me that they may get really bored, at least at some classes, and this can backfire --it often happens with gifted kids.
Now it is illegal in some places and not recommended in others -> social & cívic pressure against. Plus the increase in usefulness for the cars.
Context: in urban environment + slow roads/streets in general.
Also, are you using the term “zebra crossing” in an unusual way…? It seems like you are
??
That would reduce the usefulness of the road for pedestrians to zero
On the contrary, they could cross anywhere without needing to walk to the zebra crossing! That would increase the road's usefulness for them.
These were not rhetorical questions, I would like to see your opinion on yield signs and their difference with zebra crossings.
It's an hyperbole, of course —to keep the usefulness of the road, if it is less dangerous that people just cross in random places than that cars stop before zebra crossings, let's get rid of the crossings.
It is clear that cars not being forced to stop before zebra crossings is more unsafe.
Then let's just get rid of zebra crossings all together. But I highly suspect that this would not be a good solution (eg. in Europe I have never seen a stop sign for a zebra crossing).
if they decide to break the rules, that’s their choice
The point is that your proposal incentivises people to break the rules and cross unsafely; which is the opposite of what the proposal intends.
On the other hand, having zebra crossing more often incentivises people to use them.
The appropriate question here is what is more unsafe? 1) significant amounts of people crossing in random places, or 2) cars not being forced to stop before zebra crossings.
For me, in normal conditions 1) is clearly more unsafe, as car drivers must be paying attention to the traffic anyway. And I'd guess that this is the actual case, otherwise zebra crossings would not have been adopted.
It is not literally forcing anyone but it is effectively forcing everyone. Or don't call it forcing if you want, but it is what people are going to do.
Note that moving a zebra crossing just 200 m means having to walk 400 m more, so 5 minutes walking. For people with reduced mobility it is much longer. [edited to add the ending 'd' in reduced]
Good design is not about the theory it is about what happens in practice. Search for, for example, the design failure of Brasilia. Super well designed on plan, a failure in practice. Something similar is repeated once and again.
So, basically forcing people to cross unsafely (and potentially illegally) is the best design choice?
Less accurate, not less predictable ;-)
What is the difference with the yield sign? Or are you also against the yield sign?
Then only busy places should have zebra crossings?
Why is driving slow less predictable than stopping?
A zebra crossing is similar to a Yield sign, just giving way to pedestrians instead of other cars.
This sounds pretty good.
A designated pedestrian crossing without an associated stop sign or traffic light is just very, very bad design.
Why should this be bad design? I find it would be even more stupid to have to stop all the time (stop sign) or when the light is read but no one wants to cross. The traffic lights with a button for pedestrians are useful in some circumstances, but in many they are even more stupid (eg. often the pedestrian would have been able to cross without a problem but is forced to press the button, wait that the traffic light changes and cross, and then several cars have to stop and wait). Of course, in places with a lot of traffic and pedestrians traffic lights are the right choice, but IMO outside the city centres this is often not the right choice.
I'm not sure this is so everywhere, but in Europe one is supposed to drive carefully when approaching a zebra crossing. It is not that the guy I mention above was super-reckless -just that it is easy and useful to signal it when one wants to cross. I could easily stop on time because I drove slow and had him and the crossing in my focus, as one is supposed to do.
I live in Germany and I do something similar... but it has to be always. If you are close to a zebra crossing most cars will stop to let you cross even if you haven't made any intent to cross, so you have to do all kinds of theatre to make it clear that you are not going to cross (in that moment).
But the other day I understood why they do it (I almost never drive). I was driving approaching a zebra crossing an a guy who was walking in the same direction but through the sidewalk just turned 90º and continued walking when he reached the zebra crossing. He didn't signal the turn at all and didn't even look before crossing. He even stared at me annoyed that I did not stop before. It was like, "dude read my mind, I was going to turn all along".
This system is so inefficient and stupid. The best moments are when people do not realise they are close to a zebra crossing (or they don't give a damn) and cars approaching stop to let them cross. I've seen someone making several cars stop because they were just waiting for something in front of a zebra crossing and the traffic was low enough so that one driver would not see the previous car stopping for nothing.
Cool, thanks!
Thanks for your answer!
Oh, in the US this is dangerous, isn't it? (I mean, legally)
This is probably very location sensitive, are you both in the UK?
Michael Levin's video is wild! I'm speechless.
Nobody is saying that not sending kids to school could be not-net-negative economically in some specific cases (eg. when someone is anyway at home not doing much, maybe in farms still nowadays?). Such cases represent a tiny minority of current population, at lest in Europe (and in all rich countries). And, even for these small percentage of cases, not being net negative economically is still far away from dramatically raising the economic cost of raising these kids (even if tuition is zero).
But it is obvious that if they don't go to school someone has to take care of them, and this is much more expensive. One cannot leave a kid alone at home (regardless if he is tasked to do chores or not) until (s)he is quite grown. That would be pretty crazy (and probably illegal). And having kids working on a family business or similar, it is costly as well: you cannot work half as well, they don't work well either or fast.
The fact that Zvi thinks the value of school to kids is negative is irrelevant here, as what I quoted strictly refers to economic cost (dramatically increasing it, he says, even if tuition is 0). It really looks to me like blatant overlooking of the economic costs of not bringing kids to school. But Zvi seems reasonable (and the tweet is not available), so I asked.
One could argue that from, I don't know, 12 or 13y they could start doing something marginally productive (BTW, sorry, the legal age to start working is 16y, not 14y). This means a max of 4 years doing something productive before they can start legally working, and leaves at least 6 years having someone locked at home taking care of the kid (and hopefully trying to teach something to him), the productivity of whom would be anyway much higher than that of the kid. And note that the kid being able to start doing something productive does not exclude the adult having to be locked at home during that time.
Sorry, I haven't noticed your reply.
I think he's arguing that if kids aren't in school they could be doing something productive (working, chores, family business).
Well, this is assuming that education is not productive. Even if its only use were signalling, it is useful. But if children don't go to school, they cannot work legally until 14y, at least in Europe. Which means that there has to be someone taking care of them, which is the opposite of cheap.
I don't think anything this article talks about is meaningfully different in Europe?
I don't remember anymore the post, sorry, but it might be because social benefits making it cheap to attend school in Europe or because the school system here seems to work better? Teachers seem to be in general better paid in Europe and there are no extreme problems, nor could anybody think that having armed security is anything necessary or useful or a good idea at all. And, at least for higher education, it is usually for free, for example.
I'm so confused how 2 weeks after the post nobody has mentioned that this increases a lot (plastic) waste generation. This is an obvious con!
I think that the tradeoff in terms of getting feedback and providing something for others to build on, especially others outside of the narrow EA-motivated community, is often worthwhile.
This should be obvious for everyone! As an outside observer and huge sympathizer, it is super-frustrating how siloed the broad EA/rational/AI-alignment/adjacent community is --this specific issue with publication is only one of the consequences. Many of "you people" only interacting between "yourselves" (and I'm not referring to you, Davids), very often even socially. I mean, you guys are trying to do the most good possible, so help others use and leverage on your work! And don't waste time reinventing what is already common or, at least, what already exists outside. More mixing would also help prevent Leverage-style failures and probably improve what from the outside seems like a very weird and unhealthy "bay area social dynamics" (as put by Kaj here).
Oh, thank you! I thought that what doesn't exist was a list of initial conditions that we could already work on. I didn't expect that there is nothing at all, even far fetched. So, if I understand it correctly, for all the proposals so far developed, there have been someone suggesting a credible way an AGI could doge them. Do I understand it correctly?
Along with everything else it does, school dramatically raises the economic cost of raising kids even if tuition is zero.
I really don't get this, can anyone explain it?
In general, after reading this post, I feel very happy to have been raised in Europe.
This came out few days or weeks after my post.
It is not easy to store it for longer time, but that's one of the uses of hydrogen (for energy).
I only skimmed it as well as an article. I think it is quite likely that someone here has been very curios about this is a topic and would be happy to write about it. It is just a question, so why not asking? I am not forcing anyone to answer it or even to read the question (and I have willingly make it short).