Posts
Comments
"0.12% of the population (the most persistent offenders) accounted for 20% of violent crime convictions" https://inquisitivebird.xyz/p/when-few-do-great-harm
There are the predictable lobbies for increasing the price taxpayers pay for prisoners, but not much advocacy for decreasing it.
Thanks I had wondered about this
Pragmatic note: many of the benefits of polyester (eg activewear wicking) can be had with bamboo sourced rayon. I buy David Archy brand on Amazon.
Ai developers heading to work, colorized
successfully bought out
*got paid to remove them as a social threat
For people who want weirder takes I would recommend Egan's unstable orbits in the space of lies.
To +1 the rant, my experience across the class spectrum is that many bootstrapped successful people know this but have learned not to talk about it too much as most don't want to hear supporting evidence for meritocracy, it would invalidate their copes.
To my younger self, I would say you'll need to learn to ignore those who would stoke your learned helplessness to excuse their own. I was personally gaslit about important life decisions, not out of malice per se but just this sort of choice supportive bias, only to much later discover that jumping in on those decisions actually appeared on lists of advice older folks would give to younger.
Notkilleveryonism, why not Omnicidal AI? As in we oppose OAI.
Thank you for writing this. A couple shorthands I keep in my head for aspects:
My confidence interval ranges across the sign flip.
Due to the waluigi effect, I don't know if the outcomes I care about are sensitive to the dimension I'm varying my credence along.
I often feel that people don't get how the sucking up thing works. Not only does it not matter that it is transparent, that is part of the point. There is simultaneously common knowledge of the sucking up and common knowledge that those in the inner party don't acknowledge the sucking up, that's part of what the inner party membership consists of. People outside can accuse the insiders of nakedly sucking up and the insiders can just politely smile at them while carrying on. Sucking up can be what deference networks look like from the outside when we don't particularly like any of the people involved or what they are doing. But their hierarchy visibly produces their own aims, so more fools we.
The corn thresher is not inherently evil. Because it is more efficient than other types of threshers, the humans will inevitably eat corn. If this persists for long enough the humans will be unsurprised to find they have a gut well adapted to corn.
Per Douglas Adams, the puddle concludes that the indentation in which it rests fits it so perfectly that it must have been made for it.
The means by which the ring always serves sauron is that any who wear it and express a desire will have the possible worlds trimmed both in the direction of their desire, but also in the direction of sauron's desire in ways that they cannot see. If this persists long enough they may find they no longer have the sense organs to see (the mouth of sauron is blind).
Some people seem to have more dimensions of moral care than others, it makes one wonder about the past.
These things are similar in shape.
Even a hundred million humanoid robots a year (we currently make 90 million cars a year) will be a demand shock for human labor.
https://benjamintodd.substack.com/p/how-quickly-could-robots-scale-up
No they don't, billionaires consume very little of their net worth.
I am very confused why the tax is 99% in this example.
Post does not include the word auction, which is a key aspect of how LVT works to not have some of these downsides.
Yes, and I don't mean to overstate a case for helplessness. Demons love convincing people that the anti demon button doesn't work so that they never press it even though it is sitting right out in the open.
unfortunately, the disanalogy is that any driver who moves their foot towards the brakes is almost instantly replaced with one who won't.
High variance but there's skew. The ceiling is very high and the downside is just a bit of wasted time that likely would have been wasted anyway. The most valuable alert me to entirely different ways of thinking about problems I've been working on.
no
Both people ideally learn from existing practitioners for a session or two, ideally they also review the written material or in the case of Focusing also try the audiobook. Then they simply try facilitating each other. The facilitator takes brief notes to help keep track of where they are in the other person's stack, but otherwise acts much as eg Gendlin acts in the audiobook.
Probably the most powerful intervention I know of is to trade facilitation of emotional digestion and integration practices with a peer. The modality probably only matters a little, and so should be chosen for what's easiest to learn to facilitate. Focusing is a good start, I also like Core Transformation for going deeper once Focusing skills are good. It's a huge return on ~3 hours per week (90 minutes facilitating and being facilitated, in two sessions) IME.
"What causes your decisions, other than incidentals?"
"My values."
People normally model values as upstream of decisions. Causing decisions. In many cases values are downstream of decisions. I'm wondering who else has talked about this concept. One of the rare cases that the LLM was not helpful.
moral values
Is there a broader term or cluster of concepts within which is situated the idea that human values are often downstream of decisions, not upstream, in that the person with the correct values will simply be selected based on what decisions they are expected to make (ie election of a CEO by shareholders). This seems like a crucial understanding in AI acceleration.
I like this! improvement: a lookup chart for lots of base rates of common disasters as an intuition pump?
People inexplicably seem to favor extremely bad leaders-->people seem to inexplicably favor bad AIs.
One of the triggers for getting agitated and repeating oneself more forcefully IME is an underlying fear that they will never get it.
I had first optimism and then sadness as I read the post bc my model is that every donor group is invested in the world where we make liability laundering organizations that make juicy targets for social capture the primary object of philanthropy instead of the actual patronage (funding a person) model. I understand it is about taxes, but my guess is that biting the bullet on taxes probably dominates given various differences. Is anyone working on how to tax efficiently fund individuals via eg trusts, distributed gift giving etc?
Upvotes for trying anything at all of course since that is way above the current bar.
Would be a Whole Thing so perhaps unlikely but here is something I would use: A bounty system, microtipping system on LW where I can both pay people for posts I really like in some visible way, with a percent cut going to LW, and a way to aggregate bounties for posts people want to see (subject to vote whether a post passed the bounty threshold etc.)
Just the general crypto cycle continuing onwards since then (2018). The idea being it was still possible to get in at 5% of current prices at around the time the autopsy was written.
We seem to be closing in on needing a lesswrong crypto autopsy autopsy. Continued failure of first principles reasoning bc blinded by speculative frenzies that happen to accompany it.
Is-ought confabulation
Means-ends confabulation
Scope sensitivity
Fundamental attribution error
Attribute substitution
Ambiguity aversion
Reasoning from consequences
Recurring option at the main donation link?
+1 it took a while as a child before I came to understand that reading a book and watching a movie were meaningfully different for some people.
pretty small, hard to quantify but I'd guess under 20% and perhaps under 10.
A lot of stuff turns out to hinge on effort. One of the reasons that strength programs work better than generic exercise routines is that with higher reps it's easy to 'tire yourself out' at a level that doesn't actually drive that much adaptation. Think of those fitness classes with weights. Decent cardio, but they don't gain much strength.
Twisted: The Untold Story of a Royal Vizier isn't really rational but is rat-adjacent and funny about it. Available to watch on youtube though the video quality isn't fantastic.
what technologies like bbq are we missing?
It's also my litmus test for community, if a group can't succeed at casual BBQs at all or has them but they have to be a big production I am more wary.
Many people have no context in their life where they can get feedback on socially undesirable ideas from thoughtful people so that they can potentially update them. E.g. you hear socially undesirable thing online that you suspect has some truth to it, you can't have any reasonable discussion about which aspects might be true, which might be false, and even amongst the more true parts how to navigate having that belief or what would be a wholesome framework to use to work with it, bc no feedback.
I'll give an egregious example. At one time, iodizing salt in developing countries was opposed by some NGOs on the grounds that the argument that it raised IQ was some sort of fake racist thing. A person in that environment might have wanted to be able to discuss things in a safer space than whatever environment produced that insanity.
Thanks for writing this, I indeed felt that the arguments were significantly easier to follow than previous efforts.
My personal experience was that superintelligence made it harder to think clearly about AI by making lots of distinctions and few claims.
Thank you!
Ironically, I do not know who to attribute to the notion that 'all problems are credit assignation problems.'
I've read leaked emails from people in similar situations before that made a couple things apparent:
- Power talk happens on the phone for paper trail reasons
- There is no meeting where an actual rational discussion of considerations and theories of change happens, everything really is people flying by the seat of their pants even at highest level. Talk of ethics usually just gets you excluded from the power talk.
I concluded this from the lack of any such talk in meeting minutes that are recorded, and the lack of any reference to such considerations in 'previous conversations' or requests to set up such meetings.
This elides the original argument by assuming the conclusion: that countermanding efforts remain cheap relative to the innovations. But the whole point is that significant shifts in costs associated with defense of a certain level can change behaviors and which plans and supply chains are economically defensible a lot.
Relatedly: people often discount improvements with large startup costs even if those costs are one time cost for an ongoing benefit. One of the worst is when it's something one is definitely going to do eventually, so delaying paying the startup cost is simply reducing the amount of time for diffuse benefits. Exercise and learning to cook are like this.
One operationalization is splitting out positive and negative predictions/models in all three questions (or cost benefit etc).
when you're stuck at the bottom of an attractor a hard kick to somewhere else can be good enough even with unknown side effects.
I have attempted to communicate to ultra-high-net-worth individuals, seemingly to little success so far, that given the reality of limited personal bandwidth, with over 99% of their influence and decision-making typically mediated through others, it’s essential to refine the ability to identify trustworthy advisors in each domain. Expert judgment is an active field of research with valuable, actionable insights.