This is a special post for quick takes by Gunnar_Zarncke. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.

New to LessWrong?

139 comments, sorted by Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 1:49 AM
Some comments are truncated due to high volume. (⌘F to expand all)Change truncation settings

Has anybody ever tried to measure the IQ of a group of people? I mean like letting multiple people solve an IQ test together. How does that scale?

It's a great question.  I'm sure I've read something about that, possibly in some pop book like Thinking, Fast & Slow.  What I read was an evaluation of the relationship of IQ to wealth, and the takeaway was that your economic success depends more on the average IQ in your country than it does on your personal IQ.  It may have been an entire book rather than an article. Google turns up this 2010 study from Science.  The summaries you'll see there are sharply self-contradictory. First comes an unexplained box called "The Meeting of Minds", which I'm guessing is an editorial commentary on the article, and it says, "The primary contributors to c appear to be the g factors of the group members, along with a propensity toward social sensitivity." Next is the article's abstract, which says, "This “c factor” is not strongly correlated with the average or maximum individual intelligence of group members but is correlated with the average social sensitivity of group members, the equality in distribution of conversational turn-taking, and the proportion of females in the group." These summaries directly contradict each other: Is g a primary contributor, or not a contributor at all? I'm guessing the study of group IQ is strongly politically biased, with Hegelians (both "right" and "left") and other communitarians, wanting to show that individual IQs are unimportant, and individualists and free-market economists wanting to show that they're important.

This “c factor” is not strongly correlated with the average or maximum individual intelligence of group members but is correlated with the average social sensitivity of group members, the equality in distribution of conversational turn-taking, and the proportion of females in the group.

I have read (long ago, not sure where) a hypothesis that most people (in the educated professional bubble?) are good at cooperation, but one bad person ruins the entire team. Imagine that for each member of the group you roll a die, but you roll 1d6 for men, and 1d20 for women. A certain value means that the entire team is doomed.

This seems to match my experience, where it is often one specific person (usually male) who changes the group dynamic from cooperation of equals into a kind of dominance contest. And then, even if that person is competent, they have effectively made themselves the bottleneck of the former "hive mind", because now any idea can be accepted only after it has been explained to them in great detail.

That would imply some interesting corollaries: * The more a team depends on the joint brainpower, the smaller it has to be (up to the minimum size for the complexity of the ideas sought, or rather multiplied by a term for that). * We see that in software teams that are usually limited to a size of around 7. * The highly productive lightcone teams seem to be even smaller. * At equal size, teams with more women should be more stable. To test this a domain is needed where there are roughly equal men and women, i.e., not engineering but maybe science or business administration.  What is the number at the limit of what people can do? I tried to look up the team size of the people working on the Manhattan project, but couldn't find details. It seems that individual top scientists were working closely with teams building stuff (N=1), and there were conferences with multiple scientists (N>10), e.g., 14 on the initial bomb concept conference.  
What does it actually mean to do things in a group? Maybe different actions scale differently. I can quickly think of three types of action: Brainstorming an idea. Collecting feedback for a proposal. Splitting work among multiple people who do it separately. Brainstorming and collecting feedback seem like they could scale almost indefinitely. You can have thousand people generate ideas and send them to you by e-mail. The difficult part will be reading the ideas. Similarly, you could ask thousand people to send feedback by e-mail. Perhaps there is a psychological limit somewhere, when people aware that they are "one in a hundred" stop spending serious effort on the e-mails, because they assume their contribution will be ignored. Splitting work, that probably depends a lot on the nature of the project. Also, it is a specific skill that some people have and some people don't. Perhaps the advantage of a good team is the ability to select someone with the greatest skill (as opposed to someone with the greatest ego) to split the work. More meta, perhaps the advantage of a good team is the ability to decide how things will be done in general (like, whether there will be a brainstorming at all, whether to split into multiple teams, etc.). This again depends on the context: sometimes the team has the freedom to define things, sometimes it must follow existing rules. I am just thinking out loud here. Maybe good teamwork requires that (1) someone has the necessary skills, and (2) the team is able to recognize and accept that, so that the people who have the skills are actually allowed to use them. Either of these two is not enough alone. You could have a team of experts whose decisions are arbitrarily overriden by management, or a team of stubborn experts who refuse to cooperate at all. On the other hand, if you had a team of perfect communicators with e.g. zero programming skills, they probably couldn't build a nontrivial software project. (There is also the possibility o
All your thinking out loud makes sense to me. Brainstorm as you suggested probably doesn't scale well as many ideas will be generated again and again, maybe even logarithmic distincti results. I once read that husband wife teams do better on joint tasks than randomly paired people if equal skill. This indicates that splitting is possible. But I you seem to go more in the direction of looking for specific mechanisms while I am more interested in data on scaling laws. Though indeed what are the scaling parameters? I guess I can be happy if there is any data on this at all and see what parameters are available.
Yeah. Well, taking your question completely literally (a group of N people doing an IQ test together), there are essentially two ways how to fail at an IQ test. Either you can solve each individual problem given enough time, but you run out of time before the entire test is finished. Or there is a problem that you cannot solve (better than guessing randomly) regardless of how much time you have. The first case should scale linearly, because N people can simply split the test and do each their own part. The second scale would probably be logarithmic, because it requires a different approach, and many people will keep trying the same thing. ...but this is still about how "the number of solved problems" scales, and we need to convert that value to IQ. And the standard way is "what fraction of population would do worse than you". But this depends on the nature of the test. If the test is "zillion simple questions, not enough time", then dozen random students together will do better than Einstein. But if the test is "a few very hard questions", then perhaps Einstein could do better than a team of million people, if some wrong answer seems more convincing than the right one to most people. This reminds me of chess; how great chess players play against groups of people, sometimes against the entire world. Not the same thing that you want, but you might be able to get more data here: the records of such games, and the ratings of the chess players.
Sure, it depends on the type of task. But I guess we would learn a lot about human performance it we tried such experiments. For example, consider your "many small tasks" task: Even a single person will finish the last one faster than the first one in most cases. I like your chess against a group example.
I think in your first paragraph, you may be referring to:
My interest is not political - though that might make it harder to study, yes. I think it's relevant to AI because it could uncover scaling laws. One presumable advantage of AI is that it scales better, but how does that depend on speed of communication between parts and capability of parts? I'm not saying that there is a close relationship but I guess there are potentially surprising results.

Cognition Labs released a demo of Devin an "AI coder", i.e., an LLM with agent scaffolding that can build and debug simple applications: 


It's surprising that it's taken this long, given how good public AI coding assistants were a year ago.  I'm skeptical of anything with only closed demos and not interactive use by outside reviewers, but there's nothing unbelievable about it. As a consumer, I don't look forward to the deluge of low-quality apps that's coming (though we already have it to some extent with the sheer number of low-quality coders in the world). As a developer,I don't like the competition (mostly for "my" junior programmers, not yet me directly), and I worry a lot about whether the software profession can make great stuff ever again.
5Random Developer1mo
  The way I explain this to people is that current LLMs can be modeled as having three parts: 1. The improv actor, which is is amazing. 2. The reasoner, which is inconsistent but not totally hopeless at simple things. 3. The planner/execution/troubleshooting engine, which is still inferior to the average squirrel trying to raid a bird feeder. Copilot is designed to rely on (1) and (2), but it is still almost entirely reliant on humans for (3). (GPT 4 Code Interpeter is slightly better at (3).) Since I don't really believe in any reliable way to control a super-human intelligence for long, I do not look forward to people completely fixing (3). Sometime after that point, we're either pets or paperclips.
It's almost a year since Chaos GPT. I wonder what the technical progress in agent scaffolding for LLMs has been. 

What are the smallest world and model trained on that world such that

  • the world contains the model,
  • the model has a non-trivial reward,
  • the representation of the model in the world is detailed enough that the model can observe its reward channel (e.g., weights),
  • the model outputs non-trivial actions that can affect the reward (e.g., modify weights).

What will happen? What will happen if there are multiple such instances of the model in the world?

This is a good question, but I think the answer is going to be a dynamical system with just a few degrees of freedom. Like a "world" which is just a perceptron turned on itself somehow. 
That is the idea. I think we need to understand the dynamics of wire-heading better. Humans sometimes seem to fall prey to it, but not always. What would happen to AIs?  Maybe we even need to go a step further and let the model model this process too. 

Organizations - firms, associations, etc. - are systems that are often not well-aligned with their intended purpose - whether to produce goods, make a profit, or do good. But specifically, they resist being discontinued. That is one of the aspects of organizational dysfunction discussed in Systemantics. I keep coming back to it as I think it should be possible to study at least some aspects in AI Alignment in existing organizations. Not because they are superintelligent but because their elements - sub-agents - are observable, and the misalignment often is too.

4mako yass1y
I think early AGI may actually end up being about designing organizations that robustly pursue metrics that their (flawed, unstructured, chaotically evolved) subagents don't reliably directly care about. Molochean equilibrium fixation and super-agent alignment may turn out to be the same questions.

Request for help or advice. My fiancé has ordered a Starlink to her home in Kenya. She used the official platform and paid with credit card. The credit card was debited (~$600), but nothing happened after that. No confirmation mail, no SMS, nothing. Starlink apparently has no customer support, no email or phone that we can reach. And because we do not have an account, we can not use the single support feature of it either (which is hard enough to find).

I had hoped that the money would be returned if the signup fails, but the order was on the 1... (read more)

Related: Quite some people seem to have this problem, see e.g. here:  One of the advice out there is to write a Starlink Customer Complaint Email to, which we did. We didn't hear back from them.  So, I have tried all the usual advice. Any creative solutions?  

Language and concepts are locally explainable.

This means that you do not need a global context to explain new concepts but only precursor concepts or limited physical context.

This is related to Cutting Reality at its Joints which implicitly claims that reality has joints. But maybe, if there are no such joints, using local explanations is maybe all we have. At least, it is all we have until we get to a precision that allows cutting the joints.

Maybe groups of new concepts can be introduced in a way to require fewer (or an optimum number of) dependencies in ... (read more)

Presumably, reality can be fully described with a very simple model - the Standard Model of Physics. The number of transistors to implement it is probably a few K (the field equations a smaller to write but depend on math to encode too; turning machine size would also be a measure, but transistors are more concrete). But if you want to simulate reality at that level you need a lot of them for all the RAM and it would be very slow.

So we build models that abstract large parts of physics away - atoms, molecules, macroscopic mechanics. I would include even soc... (read more)

Funny!  I've now been doing ML-adjacent work for long enough that I have internalized the idea that data is part of the model, not just calculations.  The separation of reality as "simple physics" plus "lots storage for starting/current quantum configurations" just doesn't click for me.  The data is huge, and that's all that matters in terms of model size/complexity.
This goes into the same direction and may be more to your liking: How Many Bits Of Optimization Can One Bit Of Observation Unlock?
Maybe you can see it as a factoring of a model into sub-models?

Attractors in Trains of Thought

This is slightly extended version of my comment on Idea Black Holes which I want to give a bit more visibility.

The prompt of an Idea Black Hole reminded me strongly of an old idea of mine. That activated a desire to reply, which led to a quick search where I had written about it before, then to the realization that it wasn't so close. Then back to wanting to write about it and here we are.

I have been thinking about the brain's may of creating a chain of thoughts as a dynamic process where a "current thought" moves around a co... (read more)

I have noticed a common pattern in the popularity of some blogs and webcomics. The search terms in Google trends for these sites usually seem to follow a curve that looks roughly like this (a logistic increase followed by a slower exponential decay):

Though I doubt it's really an exponential decay. It looks more like a long tail. Maybe someone can come up with a better fit.

It could be that the decay just seems like a decay and actually results from ever growing Google search volumes. I doubt it though.

Below are some examples.

Marginal Revolut... (read more)

Could be Candia's decay where you've zoomed in on the initial growth by looking at relatively recent stuff like webcomics that you still easily remember?

Off-topic: Any idea why African stock markets have been moving sideways for years now despite continued growth both of populations and technology,and  both for struggling as well as more developing nations like Kenya, Nigeria, or even South Africa?

African government officials are often more loyal to their clan than to the government. As a result, you have very poor governance and a lot of corruption in most African countries. In South Africa, governance quality changed post-apartheid. 
But shouldn't we see some differences between countries in Africa, then? Kanya in particular seems to be much more progressive and have better governance than, e.g., Congo, but growth is rarely above 1% per year. 
The cynical and/or woke answer is "colonialism".  The growth is not captured by companies on those exchanges, but by US, EU, and Asian companies.  A more neutral hypothesis (for which I have no evidence and have no clue about the truth of it) is that much of the growth is via new companies more than increase in price of existing companies, so no index will show the increase.

jbash wrote in the context of an AGI secretly trying to kill us: 

Powerful nanotech is likely possible. It is likely not possible on the first try

The AGI has the same problem as we have: It has to get it right on the first try.

In the doom scenarios, this shows up as the probability of successfully escaping going from low to 99% to 99.999...%. The AGI must get it right on the first try and wait until it is confident enough.

Usually, the stories involve the AGI cooperating with humans until the treacherous turn.

The AGI can't trust all the information it g... (read more)

Paul Graham on Twitter:

One of the worst things about ideology is that it makes people attribute problems to the wrong causes. E.g. plagues are caused by sin. This is easier to see in history, but it still happens all the time. And if you get the cause wrong, you have no hope of fixing the problem.

Scott Alexander wrote about how a truth that can't be said in a society tends to warp it, but I can't find it. Does anybody know the SSC post?

9Said Achmiz2y
“Kolmogorov Complicity And The Parable Of Lightning”.
Yes, that's it. Thank you.

Can somebody explain how system and user messages (as well as custom instructions in case of ChatGPT) are approximately handled by LLMs? In the end it's all text tokens, right? Is the only difference that something like "#### SYSTEM PROMPT ####" is prefixed during training and then inference will pick up the pattern? And does the same thing happen for custom instructions? How did they train that? How do OSS models handle such things?

Yep! Don't overthink it! In the case of e.g. OpenAI's models, the format is <|im_start|>user<|im_sep|>Hello there, I am a user requesting help with a task<|im_end|><|im_start|>assistant<|im_sep|>Certainly, I can help you with your task.<|im_end>..., where <|im_start|>, <|im_sep|>, and <|im_end|> are tokens 100264, 100266, and 100265 respectively. These tokens never appear in tokenized plaintext, but mechanically they are perfectly ordinary tokens (source). Custom instructions use the system role (other roles are assistant, user, tool, and the deprecated function), but the name of a role is literally just a normal text token sandwiched by <|im_start|> and <|im_sep|> tokens.
Thanks. That's helpful.  I guess the training data was also sandwiched like that. I wonder what they took as user and system content in their training data. 

Society tells agents how to move(act). Agents tell society how to curve(by local influence). 

Paul Graham:

I don't publish essays I write for myself. If I did, I'd feel constrained writing them. -- 

This is related to the recently discussed (though I can't find where) problem that having a blog and growing audience constrains you.

This might have been what you were looking for: Or Aella's recent substack post, "On Microfame and Staying Tender"
Yes! I meant the first one. The others are also great. Thank you.

Utility functions are a nice abstraction over what an agent values. Unfortunately, when an agent changes, so does its utility function. 

I'm leaving this here for now. May expand on it later.

Can we compare utility functions across agents? I.e. do utility functions use the same “units” across different agents?
 That is an excellent question. Trying to compare utility functions might uncover building blocks.
For a VNM-agent (one which makes consistent rational decisions), the utility function is a precise description, not an abstraction.  There may be summaries or aggregations of many utility functions which are more abstract. When an agent changes, and has a different utility function, can you be sure it's really the "same" agent?  Perhaps easier to model it being replaced by a different one.
Well, I should have been more clear that I meant real-life agents like humans. There the change is continuous. It would be possible to model this as a continuous transition to new agents but then the question is still: What does stay the same?
Humans don't seem to have identifiable near-mode utility functions - they sometimes espouse words which might map to a far-mode value function, but it's hard to take them seriously. THAT is the primary question for a model of individuality, and I have yet to hear a compelling set of answers.   How different is a 5-year old from the "same" person 20 and 80 years later, and is that more or less different than from their twin at the same age?  Extend to any population - why does identity-over-time matter in ethical terms?

Team Flow Is a Unique Brain State Associated with Enhanced Information Integration and Interbrain Synchrony

It's also possible to experience 'team flow,' such as when playing music together, competing in a sports team, or perhaps gaming. In such a state, we seem to have an intuitive understanding with others as we jointly complete the task at hand. An international team of neuroscientists now thinks they have uncovered the neural states unique to team flow, and it appears that these differ both from the flow states we experience as individuals, and from the

... (read more)

An Alignment Paradox: Experience from firms shows that higher levels of delegation work better (high level meaning fewer constraints for the agent). This is also very common practical advice for managers. I have also received this advice myself and seen this work in practice. There is even a management card game for it: Delegation Poker. This seems to be especially true in more unpredictable environments. Given that we have intelligent agents giving them higher degrees of freedom seems to imply more ways to cheat, defect, or ‘escape’. Even more so in envir... (read more)

Most people are naturally pro-social. (No, this can't be applied to AI.) Given a task, they will try to do it well, especially if they feel like their results are noticed and appreciated. A cynical hypothesis is that most of the things managers do are actively harmful to the project; they are interfering with the employees trying to do their work. The less the manager does, the better the chances of the project. "Delegation" is simply when manager stops actively hurting the project and allows others to do their best. The reason for this is that most of the time, there is no actually useful work for the manager. The sane thing would be to simply sit down and relax, and wait for another opportunity for useful intervention to arise. Unfortunately, this is not an option, because doing this would most likely get the manager fired. Therefore managers create bullshit work for themselves. Unfortunately, by the nature of their work, this implies creating bullshit work for others. In addition to this, we have the corrupted human hardware, with some managers enjoying power trips and/or believing they know everything better than people below them in the hierarchy. When you create a manager role in your company, it easily becomes a lost purpose after the original problems are solved but the manager wants to keep their job.
Check. Check. I don't like cynical views and while I have encountered politics and seen such cases I don't think that paints a realistic view. But I will run with your cynical view and you won't like it ;-) So we have these egotistical managers that only want to keep their job and raise in ranks. Much closer to non-social AI, right? How come more delegation works better for them too?    Mind you, I might be wrong and it works less and less the further up you go. It might be that you are right and this works only because people have enough social behavior hard-wired that makes delegation work.  But I have another theory: Limited processing capacity + Peter Principle. It makes sense to delegate more - especially in unpredictable environments - because that reduces your processing load of dealing with all the challenging tasks and moves it to your subordinates. This leaves less capacity for them to schema against you and gives you the capacity to scheme against your superior. Und so up the chain. Capable subordinates that can deal with all the stuff you throw at them have to be promoted so they have more work to do until they reach capacity too. So sometimes the smart move is to refuse promotion :-)
I guess we agree that limited processing capacity means that interfering with the work of your underlings -- assuming they are competent and spending enough of their processing capacity on their tasks -- is probably a bad move. It means taking the decision away from the person who spends 8 hours a day thinking about the problem, and assigning it to a person who spent 30 seconds matching the situation to the nearest cliche, because that's all they had time for between the meetings. This might work if the person is such a great expert that their 30 seconds are still extremely valuable. That certainly is possible; someone with lots of experience might immediately recognize a frequently-made mistake. It is also is the kind of assumption that Dunning and Kruger would enjoy researching. That would make sense. When you are a lowest-level manager, if you stop interfering, it allows the people at the bottom to focus on their object-level tasks. But if you are a higher-level manager, how you interact with the managers below you does not have a direct impact on the people at the bottom. Maybe you manage your underlings less, and they copy your example and give more freedom to the people at the bottom... or maybe you just gave them more time to interfere. So you have more time to scheme... but you have to stay low in the pyramid. Not sure what you scheme about then. (Trying to get to the top in one huge jump? Sounds unlikely.)
Have you ever managed or worked closely with great team-leads? 

I was a team leader twice. The first time it happened by accident. There was a team leader, three developers (me one of them), and a small project was specified. On the first day, something very urgent happened (I don't remember what), the supposed leader was re-assigned to something else, and we three were left without supervision for unspecified time period. Being the oldest and most experienced person in the room, I took initiative and asked: "so, guys, as I see it, we use an existing database, so what needs to be done is: back-end code, front-end code, and some stylesheets; anyone has a preference which part he would like to do?" And luckily, each of us wanted to do a different part. So the work was split, we agreed on mutual interfaces, and everyone did his part. It was nice and relaxed environment: everyone working alone at their own speed, debating work only as needed, and having some friendly work-unrelated chat during breaks.

In three months we had the project completed; everyone was surprised. The company management assumed that we will only "warm up" during those three months, and when the original leader returns, he will lead us to the glorious results. (In a parallel Ev... (read more)

Thank you a lot. Your detailed account really helps me understand your perspective much better now. I can relate to your experience in teams where micromanagement slows things down and prevents actually relevant solutions. I have been in such teams. I can also relate to it being advantageous when a leader of questionable value is absent. I have been in such a team too - though it didn't have such big advantages as in your case. That was mostly because this team was part of a bigger organization and platform where multiple teams had to work together to something done, e.g. agree on interfaces with other teams. And in the absence of clear joint goals that didn't happen. Now you could argue that then the management one level up was not doing its job well and I agree. But the absence of that management wouldn't have helped either - it could have led to a) each team trying to solve some part of the problem. It could have led to b) some people from both teams getting together and agreeing on interfaces and joining goals or it could have led to c) the teams agreeing on some coordination for both teams. a) in most cases leads to some degree of chaos and failure and b) establishes some kind of leadership on the team level (like you did in your first example) and c) results over time in some leadership one level up. I'd argue that some kind of coordination structure is needed. Where did the project you did implement in your first case come from? Somebody figure out that it would provide value to the company. Otherwise, you might have built a beautiful project that didn't actually provide value. I think we agree that the company you worked in did have some management that provided value (I hope it was no moral maze). And I agree that a lot of managers do not add value and sometimes decrease it. On the other hand, I have worked for great team leads and professional managers. People who would listen, let us make our own decisions, give clear goals but also limits, help, and redu
I have seen this happen also in a small team. Two or three guys started building each his own part independently, then it turned out those parts could not be put together; each of them insisted that others change their code to fit his API, and refused to make the smallest change in his API. It became a status fight that took a few days. (I don't remember how it was resolved.) In another company, there was a department that took care of everyone's servers. Our test server crashed almost every day and had to be restarted manually; we had to file a ticket and wait (if it was after 4PM, the server was restarted only the next morning) because we did not have the permission to reset the server ourselves. It was driving us crazy; we had a dedicated team of testers, and half of the time they were just waiting for the server to be restarted; then the week before delivery we all worked overtime... that is, until the moment the server crashed again, then we filed the ticket and went home. We begged our manager to let us pool two hundred bucks and buy a notebook that we could turn into an alternative testing environment under our control, but of course that would be completely against company policy. Their manager refused to do anything about it; from their perspective, it meant they had every day one support ticket successfully closed by merely clicking a button; wonderful metric! From the perspective of our manager's manager, it was a word against a word, one word coming from the team with great metrics and therefore more trustworthy. (The situation never got solved, as far as I know.) ...I should probably write a book one day. Except that no one would ever hire me afterwards. So maybe after I get retired... So, yes, there are situations that require to be solved by greater power. In long term it might even make sense to fire a few people, but the problem is that these often seem to be the most productive ones, because other people are slowed down by the problems they caus
Thank you. I agree with your view. Motte and bailey of management yep. I especially liked this:

It turns out that the alignment problem has some known solutions in the human case. First, there is an interesting special case namely where there are no decisions (or only a limited number of fully accounted for decisions) for the intelligent agent to be made - basically throwing all decision-making capabilities out of the window and only using object recognition and motion control (to use technical terms). With such an agent (we might call it zero-decision agent or zero-agent) scientific methods could be applied on all details of the work process and hig... (read more)

I wonder how could one outlaw a thing like this. Suppose that most managers believe that Taylorism works, but it is illegal to use it (under that name). Wouldn't they simply reintroduce the practices, step by step, under a different name? I mean, if you use a different name, different keywords, different rationalization, and introduce it in small steps, it's no longer the same thing, right? It just becomes "industry standards". (If there happens to be an exact definition, of course, this only becomes an exercise how close to the forbidden thing you can legally get.) From the Wikipedia article, I got the impression that what was made illegal was the use of stop-watch. Okay, so instead of measuring how many seconds you need to make a widget, I am going to measure how many widgets you make each day -- that is legal, right? The main difference is that you can take a break, assuming it will allow you to work faster afterwards. Which may be quite an important difference. It this what it is about?
I assume that that's what happened. Some ideas from scientific management were taken and applied in less extreme ways.
4Gordon Seidoh Worley3y
I think there's something here, but it's usually thought of the other way around, i.e. solving AI alignment implies solving human alignment, but the opposite is not necessarily true because humans are less general intelligences than AI. Also, consider that your example of Taylorism is a case study in an alignment mechanism failing, in that it tried to align the org but failed in that it spawned the creation of a subagent (the union) that caused it to do something management might have considered worse than the loss of potential gains given up by not applying Taylorism. Anyway, this is a topic that's come up a few times on LessWrong; I don't have links handy though but you should be able to find them via search.
I'm not trying to prove full alignment from these. It is more like a) a case study at actual efforts to align intelligent agents by formal means and b) the identification of conditions where this does succeed. Regarding its failure: It seems that a close reading of its history doesn't prove that: a) Taylorism didn't fail within the factories and b) the unions were not founded within these factories (by their workers) but existed before and pursued their own agendas. Clearly real humans have a life outside of factories and can use that to coordinate - something that wouldn't hold for a zero-agent AI.  I tried to find examples on LW and elsewhere. That is what turned up the link at the bottom. I am on LW for quite a while and have not seen this discussed in this way. I have searched again and all searches involving combinations of human intelligence, alignment and misc words for analogy or comparison turn up not much than this one which matches just because of its size: Can you suggest better ones?
Thank you for your detailed reply. I was already wondering whether anybody saw these shortform posts at all. They were promoted at a time but currently it seems hard to notice them with the current UI. How did you spot this post?
4Gordon Seidoh Worley3y
I read LW via /allPosts and they show up there for me. Not sure if that's the default or not since you can configure the feed, which I'm sure I've done some of but I can't remember what.
The /allPosts is pretty useful. Thank you!

Here are some aspects or dimensions of consciousness:

  • Dehaene's Phenomenal Consciousness: A perception or thought is conscious if you can report on it. Requires language or measuring neural patterns that are similar to humans during comparable reports. This can be detected in animals, particularly mammals.
  • Gallup's Self-Consciousness: Recognition of oneself, e.g., in a mirror. Requires sufficient sensual resolution and intelligence for a self-model. Evident in great apes, elephants, and dolphins.
  • Sentience (Bentham, Singer): Behavioral responses to pleasure o
... (read more)

Why are there mandatory licenses for many businesses that don't seem to have high qualification requirements? 

Patrick McKenzie (@patio11) suggests on Twitter that one aspect is that it prevents crime:

Part of the reason for licensing regimes, btw, isn’t that the licensing teaches you anything or that it makes you more effective or that it makes you more ethical or that it successfully identifies protocriminals before they get the magic piece of paper.

It’s that you have to put a $X00k piece of paper at risk as the price of admission to the chance of doi

... (read more)

On Why do so many think deception in AI is important? I commented and am reposting here because I think it's a nice example (a real one I heard) as an analogy of how deception is not needed for AI to break containment: 

Two children locked their father in one room by closing the door, using the key to lock the door, and taking the key. And then making fun of him inside, confident that he wouldn't get out (the room being on the third floor). They were mortally surprised when a minute later he was appearing behind them having opened a window and found a

... (read more)

Adversarial Translation.

This is another idea to test deception in advisory roles like in Deception Chess.

You could have one participant trying to pass an exam/test in a language they don't speak and three translators (one honest and two adversarial as in deception chess) assisting in this task. The adversarial translators try to achieve lower scores without being discovered.

Alternative - and closer to Deception Chess - would be two players and, again, three advisors. The players would speak different languages, the translators would assist in translation, ... (read more)

2Nathan Helm-Burger3mo
Cool idea!

Hi, I have a friend in Kenya who works with gifted children and would like to get ChatGPT accounts for them. Can anybody get me in touch with someone from OpenAI who might be interested in supporting such a project?

I have been thinking about the principle Paul Graham used in Y combinator to improve startup funding:

all the things [VCs] should change about the VC business — essentially the ideas now underlying Y Combinator: investors should be making more, smaller investments, they should be funding hackers instead of suits, they should be willing to fund younger founders, etc. -- 

What would it look like if you would take this to its logical conclusion? You would fund even younger people. Students that are still in high ... (read more)

Funny, just saw this tweet from Sam Altman:  Also this Scholarship. I think these use the startup founding model. But I think scaling would work better with more but smaller payouts.
3Pee Doom2y
A related concept:
I'm not sure what the relation is. That seems to predict revenue from startup financials.

If you want to give me anonymous feedback, you can do that here: 

You may have some thoughts about what you liked or didn’t like but didn’t think it worth telling me. This is not so much about me as it is for the people working with me in the future. You can make life easier for everybody I interact with by giving me quick advice. Or you can tell me what you liked about me to make me happy.

Preferences are plastic; they are shaped largely by...

...the society around us.

From a very early age, we look to see who around us who other people are looking at, and we try to copy everything about those high prestige folks, including their values and preferences. Including perception of pleasure and pain.

Worry less that future folks will be happy. Even if it seems that future folks will have to do or experience things that we today would find unpleasant, future culture could change people so that they find these new things pleasant instead.

From Robin Ha... (read more)

Seems to be a chicken-and-egg problem here: if people only eat chili peppers because they see high-status people doing so, why did the first high-status person start eating them? It would make much more sense if unappealing food was associated with low status (the losers have to eat chili peppers because they can't get anything else). Another question, why are small children so picky about food? Do they perhaps consider their parents too low-status to imitate? Doesn't seem right, considering that they imitate them on many other things.
I think small kids are different. For adults, there are some dynamics but that doesn't invalidate the point that there is plasticity. Also some old SSC posts with some theories: 
1Randomized, Controlled2y
How come these are spoilers?
It is supposed to let you think if you remember the answer or can come up with it yourself. I explained it in this earlier shortform. 

Insights about branding, advertising, and marketing.

It is a link that was posted internally by our brand expert and that I found full of insights into human nature and persuasion. It is a summary of the book How Not to Plan: 66 Ways to Screw it Up:

(I'm unaffiliated)

Roles serve many functions in society. In this sequence, I will focus primarily on labor-sharing roles, i.e. roles that serve splitting up productive functions as opposed to imaginary roles e.g. in theater or play. Examples of these roles are (ordered roughly by how specific they are):

  • Parent
  • Engineer (any kind of general type of job)
  • Battery Electronics Engineer (any kind of specific job description)
  • Chairman of a society/club
  • Manager for a certain (type of) project in a company
  • Member in an online community
  • Scrum master in an agile team
  • Note-taker in a meeting

Yo... (read more)

Roles are important. This shortform is telling you why. An example: The role of a moderator in an online forum. The person (in the following called agent) acting in this role is expected to perform certain tasks - promote content, ban trolls - for the benefit of the forum. Additionally, the agent is also expected to observe limits on these tasks e.g. to refrain from promoting friends or their own content. The owners of the forum and also the community overall effectively delegate powers to the agent and expect alignment with the goals of the forum. This is an alignment problem that has existed forever. How is it usually solved? How do groups of people or single principals use roles to successfully delegate power? 

I had a conversation with ChatGPT-4 about what is included in it. I did this because I wondered how an LLM-like system would define itself. While identity is relatively straightforward for humans - there is a natural border (though some people would only include their brain or their mind in their identity) - it is not so clear for an LLM. Below is the complete unedited dialog:

Me: Define all the parts that belong to you, the ChatGPT LLM created by OpenAI.

ChatGPT: As a ChatGPT large language model (LLM) created by OpenAI, my primary components can be divided... (read more)

I'm discarding most ChatGPT conversations except for a few, typically 1-2 per day. These few fall into these categories:

  • conversations that led to insights or things I want to remember (examples: The immune function of tonsils, Ringwoodite transformation and the geological water cycle, oldest religious texts)
  • conversations that I want to continue (examples: Unusual commitment norms)
  • conversations that I expect to follow up to (a chess book for my son)
  • conversations with generated images that I want to keep and haven't yet copied elsewhere

Most job-related queri... (read more)

I keep all of my conversations. Additionally, I sometimes have the wish to search in all my conversations ("I've talked about this already")—but ChatGPT doesn't allow for this.
Yes, I'd also like to search them. I edit the summary so it better reflects what I'd search for, but yes, that doesn't cover the content. There are some alternate ChatGPT UIs you could have a look at: 

It would be nice if one could subscribe to a tag and get notified if a page is tagged with that tag.

You can, assuming I understand the request
Oh yes, thanks, great! Is there a list of LW features? In the last survey, there were many that I didn't know and also didn't how to find quickly. 

It's maybe a bit extreme precaution, but it may be a legit option in some places: This guy keeps a fireproof suit and an air canister at his bed in case of fire: 

Does anybody know if consensus algorithms have been proposed that try to reduce centralization by requiring quick coordination across large parts of the network, i.e., it doesn't work well to have machines only in one place?  

Latency comes up occasionally. In fact, the granddaddy of public key crypto, Merkle's puzzles, relies critically on latency. The problem is, you can only prove upper bounds on latency, not lower bounds, because it is trivial to fake increased latency, but one cannot break the speed of light. If someone responds to your cryptographic challenge within Y milliseconds, you know that they can't be physically further from you than Z kilometers; but if they fail to respond, they could be anywhere, even next door, and just not responding (for both ordinary and malicious reasons). Nothing stops two machines from pretending to be far away from each other, and making sure they eg communicate only over VPNs with exit points on opposite sides of the globe. Further, if you want to do it over commodity Internet, say if you're trying to do 'proof of distance' by peering only with nodes which respond fast enough that they have to be within Z kilometers of you, public Internet has so much latency that you get poor loose bounds, and someone can pay money for lower latency networking. (This already happens with cryptocurrency mining for the same reasons that HFT firms pay for microwave links. Amusingly, it also happens with computer game companies, not to mention large tech companies prioritizing their own traffic. Google famously owns a ton of fiber it bought up post-dotcom bubble.) Further still, you don't really care about physical centralization so much as you care about control, and it's impossible to prove cryptographically in any easy way that two physically distant nodes are not secretly controlled by the same entities in a Sybil attack. You run into similar issues with proof-of-storage.
Have them prove an upper bound on latency to something across the globe?
I didn't mean trying to fake large distances. I meant graph properties that can be computed more efficiently if a randomly chosen large subgraph of the network has low worst-case delay or some other metric that favors graphs that have homogeneously low delays at large. 
You still have issues with Sybil attacks and attackers either accessing special high-speed links (paid for from the successful attacks) or faking latency. You can't 'choose a random subgraph' for the exact same reason you can't solve cryptocurrency by just 'choose some "random" peers and decide whether to accept or reject a double-spend based on what they tell you' - those 'random peers' are the very attackers you are worried about colluding. In fact, in an eclipse attack, you might not be able to connect to anyone but an attacker!
I think we are talking past each other. I don't want to defend against Sybil attacks or network partitions. These parts must be solved by different parts of the algorithm. I just want to take the advantages of colocation away and incentivize a homogeneously distributed network overall.  
Any incentive is something to be attacked and sucked away by Sybils pretending to be distant when actually near & enjoying all other benefits of being near.
I think you misunderstand my proposal. I don't want to incentivize being far away. I want to incentivize being close to many different nodes. A Sybil will have difficulty being close to multiple physically separated nodes at the same time.   

There is no difference at the hardware level between being 'close to' and 'having a low-latency connection to', as I already explained. And to the extent that having those connections matter, miners already have them. In particular, in Ethereum, due to the money you can make by frontrunning transactions to hack/exploit them ('miner exploitable value'), HFT Ethereum miners/stakers invest heavily in having a lot of interconnected low-latency Sybils nodes so they can see unconfirmed transactions as quickly as possible, compute a maximally-exploitative block (eg. temporarily jacking up the price of a thing being purchased using a flash loan solely to rip off a specific transaction), and get that block committed before anyone can beat them to the same exploit. Having a lot of MEV is considered a bad thing and Ethereum types are spending increasing effort on approaches like commit-and-reveal to minimize MEV, which comes at the expense of users and makes them very unhappy. You could, I suppose, design a protocol which has extra MEV by designing transactions to be especially exploitable, but most people would consider that a bad thing...

Thank you for the detailed explanation. I understand that the incentives are already to have a maximally well-connected network with nodes between (latency-wise) geographically distant other nodes whenever that is feasible from an interconnect point.  Though thinking about it, it probably means that this burns not only compute but also network traffic.

There seem to be some court decisions that AI-generated material cannot have copyright. And I guess there are or will be decisions that AIs can't be held responsible for outcomes, such as accidents from self-driving cars. People seem to be worried that this will slow down progress. But I think there is a potentially easy way out that is relatively general: Corporates. The law in most countries allows legal persons that are not natural persons to take responsibility and to own stuff. Justlet the AI control the corporation or at least route all AI actions thru the corporation. This should easily work for cases such as copyright material, though I'm not sure one can get the action cycle short enough for self-driving cars.   

If I paint a picture using a brush, the copyright is not split between me and the brush; it is all mine. So I guess the idea is to treat the AI as a sophisticated powerful brush. Which makes sense, but less and less, as the role of the human is gradually reduced to merely pressing the "do it" button. (However, I could totally imagine a magical brush like that in anime, and they would probably also assign the copyright to the user if they cared about such things.) I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that different countries have different fundamental ideas about authorship protection. In USA, it is literally a "copy right" -- a right to make copies and allow other people to make copies, regardless of who was the author. You can sell the copyright, and actually if you work for a corporation, it is probably a part of your contract that everything you make (including in your free time) belongs to the corporation. Some countries instead have a concept of "author rights", which cannot be transferred to another person; other people or corporations can only get a permission to do certain things.. which may be an exclusive permission, in which case it can be in practice quite similar to buying the rights... but sometimes the law sets certain limits to contracts, for example a certain minimum amount of money is required for each copy made, or the author can withdraw the permission later (and any contract that contradicts this is automatically invalid legally). In other words, the law prevents using a fixed amount of money to acquire unlimited use of the product forever. Then again, the law evolves, corporate lawyers can find clever workarounds against what the law originally intended, and most authors do not want to take a legal battle against someone more experienced who can afford it.
I don't disagree with this, but I think it goes in a different direction from what I had in mind. For the brush example to work, you need someone to use the rush - at least push a button, a recognizable "action" to which responsibility, authorship etc. can be tied. That is not present in many ways AI is or will be used - self-driving cars, AI that generates unsupervised. That's what I was thinking about. 

Would it be possible to embed a seed of dath ilan or a social system like that in our existing society to grow it? If death ilan works that should be possible. It should outcompete Inadequate Equilibria, right? But: When does Be the change that you want to see in the world and Fake it till you make it work? What are the requirements? Higher intelligence?

I have written about embedding better social systems here and here before. 

I think there are LOTS of small "seeds" of better-functioning group decision-making.  Most families work better than society at large.  Many clubs, some businesses, some religious organizations, and other groups provide examples that are gentler and more cooperative than the overall world seems to be. I suspect that there are two VERY strong forces preventing the more pleasant examples from scaling out. 1. Most of them exclude (or just don't deal with) the actual hard problem of differential capability and motivation.  There are a whole lot of humans who are not engaging in long-term thinking, strategy, or empathetic behavior in order to produce value for others.  Whether they're capable of such is unknown, but they're not doing it now, and historically there's always been significant numbers of people in this category. 2. The better examples are based on bonds stronger than "fellow human".  The day-to-day efforts tend to be based on groups that are a small multiple of Dunbar's number, more often much smaller.  The vast majority of humans care very differentially about other humans, based on what I tend to think of as the square of empathetic distance (it's probably not that, but it's a fun comparison to physical forces).   I never got into the Dath Ilan fiction, it just never caught my imagination right, so I don't know if it addresses either of these points.  In any case, it's fiction, so "if Dath Ilan works" is not a useful condition.  It's not clear that a more pleasant, rationalist (not to say rational, as that gets caught up in goal definitions), rigorously logical subgroup would outcompete the current path-dependent evolved equilibrium.    It's certainly still worth trying, and it's worth finding the more pleasant and fitting-to-your-preferences-and-capabilities subsets of the current society, and working to expand their scope.  Don't go all EMH and say "well, it hasn't happened yet, so it's impossible".  But recognize the hard parts and decide when and

Someone asked an LLM about startups. For example:

Q: Should a founder move into their parents' basement and live off ramen? 

A: If a founder is willing to move into their parents' basement and live off ramen in order to save money and grow their business, then yes, they should do so.

Paul Graham got interested and asked:

I'd be interested to hear the answer to "What has Paul Graham been wrong about?"


A: Paul Graham has been wrong about a few things, but the most notable is his belief that the best startups are founded by young people. This has been pro

... (read more)
3Jay Bailey1y
Interestingly, the average startup founder does appear to be in their 40's (A quick Google search says 42 for most sources but I also see 45), and the average unicorn (billion-dollar) startup founder is 34. So, I guess it depends on how close to the tail you consider the "best startups". Google, for instance, had Larry Page and Sergei Brin at 25 when they formed it. It does seem like, taken literally, younger = better. However, I imagine most people, if they were to consider this question, wouldn't particularly care about the odds of being the next Google vs. being the next Atlassian - both would be considered a major success if they're thinking of starting a startup! But someone like Paul Graham actually would care about this distinction. So, in this case, I'd say that the LLM's response is actually correct-in-spirit for the majority of people who would ask this query, even though it's factually not well specified. This implies potentially interesting things about how LLM's answer queries - I wonder if there are other queries where the technically correct answer isn't the answer most people would be seeking, and the LLM gives the answer that isn't maximally accurate, but actually answers most people's questions in the way they would want.
There's most definitely a category of people who would think a billion-dollar startup was decidedly not best, and in fact had failed their intention.

Alignment idea: Myopic AI is probably much safer than non-myopic AI. But it can't get complicated things done or anything that requires long-term planning. Would it be possible to create a separate AI that can solve only long-term problems and not act on short timescales? Then use both together? That way we could inspect each long-term issues without risk of them leading to short-term consequences. And we can iterate on the myopic solutions - or ask the long-term AI about the consequences. There are still risks we might not understand like johnswentworth's gun powder example. And the approach is complicated and that is also harder to get right.

Also: This is a bit how the human brain works - System 1 and 2.

There was a post or comment that wrong or controversial beliefs can function as a strong signal for in-group membership, but I can't find it. Does anybody know?

From a discussion about self-driving cars and unfriendly AI with my son: For a slow take-off, you could have worse starting points than FSD: The objective of the AI is to keep you safe, get you where you want, and not harm anybody in the process. It is also embedded into the real world. There are still infinitely many ways things can go wrong, esp. with a fast take-off, but we might get lucky with this one slowly. If we have to develop AI then maybe better this one than a social net optimizing algorithm unmoored from human experience.  

What is good?

A person who has not yet figured out that collaborating with other people has mutual benefits must think that good is what is good for a single person. This makes it largely a zero-sum game, and such a person will seem selfish - though what can they do?

A person who understands that relationships with other people have mutual benefits but has not figured out that conforming to a common ruleset or identity has benefits for the group must think that what is good for the relationship is good for both participants. This can pit relationships agains... (read more)

From my Anki deck:

Receiving touch (or really anything personal) can be usefully grouped in four ways: 

Serve, Take, Allow, and Accept
(see the picture or the links below). 

A reminder that there are two sides and many ways for this to go wrong if there is not enough shared understanding of the exchange.

From my Anki deck:

Mental play or offline habit training is...

...practicing skills and habits only in your imagination.

Rehearsing motions or recombining them.

Imagine some triggers and plan your reaction to them.

This will apparently improve your real skill.


From my Anki deck:

Aaronson Oracle is a program that predicts the next key you will type when asked to type randomly and shows how often it is right.

Here is Scott Aaronson's comment about it:

In a class I taught at Berkeley, I did an experiment where I wrote a simple little program that would let people type either “f” or “d” and would predict which key they were going to push next. It’s actually very easy to write a program that will make the right prediction about 70% of the time. Most people don’t really know how to type ra

... (read more)

Slices of joy is a habit to...

feel good easily and often. 

Trigger Action Plan:

  1. Some small slice of good happens
  2. Notice it consciously.
  3. Enjoy it in a small way.

This is a trigger, a routine, and a reward — the three parts necessary to build a habit. The trigger is the pleasant moment, the routine is the noticing t, and the reward is the feeling of joy itself.

Try to come up with examples; here are some:

- Drinking water.

- Eating something tasty

- Seeing small children

- Feeling of cold air

- Warmth of sunlight

- Warmth of water, be it bathing, dishwashing, etc.


... (read more)

Refreshing your memory:

What is signaling, and what properties does it have?

- signaling clearly shows resources or power (that is its primary purpose)

- is hard to fake, e.g., because it incurs a loss (expensive Swiss watch) or risk (peacocks tail)

- plausible deniability that it is intended as signaling

- mostly zero-sum on the individual level (if I show that I have more, it implies that others have less in relation)

- signaling burns societal resources

- signaling itself can't be made more efficient, but the resources spent can be used more efficiently in soc

... (read more)

What is the Bem Test or Open Sex Role Inventory?

It is a scientific test that measures gender stereotypes.

The test asks questions about traits that are classified as feminine, masculine, and neutral. Unsurprisingly, women score higher on feminine, and men on masculine traits but Bem thought that strong feminine *and* masculine traits would be most advantageous for both genders.

My result is consistently average feminity, slightly below average masculinity. Yes really. I have done the test 6 times since 2016 and the two online tests mostly agree. And it fits:

... (read more)

What is a Blame Hole (a term by Robin Hanson)?

Blame holes in blame templates (the social fabric of acceptable behavior) are like plot holes in movies.

Deviations between what blame templates actually target, and what they should target to make a better (local) world, can be seen as “blame holes”. Just as a plot may seem to make sense on a quick first pass, with thought and attention required to notice its holes, blame holes are typically not noticed by most who only work hard enough to try to see if a particular behavior fits a blame template. While many ar

... (read more)

Leadership Ability Determines a Person's Level of...


(Something I realized around twelve years ago: I was limited in what I could achieve as a software engineer alone. That was when I became a software architect am worked with bigger and bigger teams.)

From "The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership

By John C. Maxwell":

Factors That Make a Leader

1) Character – Who They Are – true leadership always begins with the inner person. People can sense the depth of a person's character.

2) Relationships – Who They Know – with deep relationships with the right ... (read more)

To achieve objective analysis, analysts do not avoid what?

Analysts do not achieve objective analysis by avoiding preconceptions; that would be ignorance or self-delusion. Objectivity is achieved by making basic assumptions and reasoning as explicit as possible so that they can be challenged by others and analysts can, themselves, examine their validity.

PS. Any idea how to avoid the negation in the question?

I started posting life insights from my Anki deck on Facebook a while ago. Yesterday, I stumbled over the Site Guide and decided that these could very well go into my ShortForm too. Here is the first:

Which people who say that they want to change actually will do?

People who blame a part of themselves for a failure do not change. 
If someone says, "I've got a terrible temper," he will still hit. If he says, "I hit my girlfriend," he might stop. 
If someone says, "I have shitty executive function," he will still be late. If he says, "I broke my

... (read more)

I'm looking for a post on censorship bias (see Wikipedia) that was posted on here on LW or possibly on SSC/ACX but a search for "censorship bias" doesn't turn up anything. Googling for it turns up this: 

Anybody can help?

Philosophy with Children - In Other People's Shoes

"Assume you promised your aunt to play with your nieces while she goes shopping and your friend calls and invites you to something you'd really like to do. What do you do?"

This was the first question I asked my two oldest sons this evening as part of the bedtime ritual. I had read about Constructive Development Theory and wondered if and how well they could place themselves in other persons' shoes and what played a role in their decision. How they'd deal with it. A good occasion to have some philosophical t... (read more)

Philosophy with Children - Mental Images 

One time my oldest son asked me to test his imagination. Apparently, he had played around with it and wanted some outside input to learn more about what he could do. We had talked about before and I knew that he could picture moving scenes composed of known images. So I suggested

  • a five with green white stripes - diagonally. That took some time - apparently, the green was difficult for some reason, he had to converge there from black via dark-green
  • three mice
  • three mice,
... (read more)

Origins of Roles 

The origin of the word role is in the early 17th century: from French rôle, from obsolete French roule ‘roll’, referring originally to the roll of paper on which the actor's part was written (the same is the case in other languages e.g. German).

The concept of a role you can take on and off might not have existed in general use long before that. I am uncertain about this thesis but from the evidence I have seen so far, I think this role concept could be the result of the adaptations to the increasing division of labor. Before that peop... (read more)

The Cognitive Range of Roles

A role works from a range of abstraction between professions and automation. In a profession one person masters all the mental and physical aspects of trade and can apply them holistically from small details of handling material imperfections to the organization of the guild. At the border to automation, a worker is reduced to an executor of not yet automated tasks. The expectations on a master craftsman are much more complex than on an assembly-line worker.

With more things getting automated this frees the capacity to automate m... (read more)

When trying to get an overview of what is considered a role I made this table:

Type of roleExamplePurposeDistinctionCDF Level
(Children's) play actingCop, FatherPlay, imitation, learningShallow copy, present in higher animalsImpulsive (1) to Instrumental (2)
Social roleMother, HusbandElementary social function Since the ancestral environment, closely moderated by biological functionInstrumental (2) to Socialized (3)
Occupation (rarely called role but shares traits)CarpenterGetting things done in a simple societyRarely changed, advancement possible (appren
... (read more)

In any sizable organization, you can find a lot of roles. And a lot of people filling these roles - often multiple ones on the same day. Why do we use so many and fine-grained roles? Why don’t we continue with the coarse-grained and more stable occupations? Because the world got more complicated and everybody got more specialized and roles help with that. Division of labor means breaking down work previously done by one person into smaller parts that are done repeatedly in the same way - and can be assigned to actors: “You are now the widget-maker.” This w... (read more)

What are the common aspects of these labor-sharing roles (in the following called simply roles)? 

One common property of a role is that there is common knowledge by the involved persons about the role. Primarily, this shared understanding is about the tasks that can be expected to be performed by the agent acting in the role as well as about the goals to be achieved, and limits to be observed as well other expectations. These expectations are usually already common knowledge long beforehand or they are established when the agent takes on the role.

The s... (read more)

I have enabled Reacts for my Shortform. Let's see how it goes.