All of Brendan Long's Comments + Replies

Jane Street is a pretty extreme comparison. An easier one is that a good software engineer at Google can, in their late 20's, make 2x what a tenured professor makes by the end of their career, with similar or better work/life balance. Tenure becomes irrelevant when you can retire by 40.

I suspect the discrepencies in our land value vs improvement value numbers have to do with where the land is and how efficiently it's used. If you have a single family home in San Francisco, most of the value will be land, but it seems undesirable that your proposed tax would very heavily penalize anyone who tries to turn a single-family house in SF into a skyscraper (with a much lower land/improvement ratio).

As for skyscrapers, the interesting thing about this proposal is that hard-to-remove amendments essentially become land. For example, if you made a

... (read more)

I actually thought Richard's post was a joke until I read this. I'm impressed.

Since bidders know they can get away with buying the home cheaper than the true value, they will increase their bids. Without taxes, the bidders would increase their bids by almost the V/2 profit they can expect to make. However, they won’t increase their bids fully, since they will be taxed based on the higher bids. Notice that from the sellers perspective, they get roughly the true value of the house, it is just that part of the home value comes from the land bid while another part comes from the home sale. From the seller’s perspective, this looks like

... (read more)
So yes, taxing property values is undesirable, but it also happens with imperfect land value assessments: It looks like you have different numbers for the cost of land, sale value of a house, and cost of construction. I'm not an expert, so I welcome other estimates. A couple comments: 1. Land value assessors typically say that the land value is larger than the improvement value. In urban centers, land can be over 70% of the overall property value. I would guess this is where the discrepancy comes from with our numbers. AEI has a nice graphic of this here: 1. Overhead costs of construction would act to reduce the overall distortion, since those are included in C_b in the formula for distortion. The construction costs look larger in that article than what I used, but I guess what we really need to know is the markup from construction. Let's just keep all the construction and demolition costs the same and use your land value ($100K) and improvement value ($400K): P = 400K + 0.5*(76K -(400K + 10K)) = 233K B = 100K + ((400-233) - 0.05*(400-233)*10)*0.31 = 126K Total = 359K So the buyer gets 500K of property for $359K, a 28% price reduction. The land tax is ~25% improvement value. It's easy to adjust land taxes down by 25% so that you tax the correct amount, but the implicit tax on property is a big problem in this case. The thing is, I don't think land value being only 20% of property values is realistic, especially in urban areas. Median land share in the US is more like 50% so I'm not really sure where the discrepancy comes from. As for skyscrapers, the interesting thing about this proposal is that hard-to-remove amendments essentially become land. For example, if you made a plot of land fertile, that improvement is difficult/undesirable to remove, so when you go to sell it, the owner pays for it as if it were land. I'll tackle this more in the second post.

I can't test this right now, but I wonder if part of the problem is that you're prompting it to have fun and (implicitly) to tell you a story, not to do logical thinking. I wonder if a "I was reading about this historical thing..." prompt, or a fully-modern prompt would help, but if you make it too realistic ChatGPT's "don't tell users to kill people" behavior will take over.

So on atheism, it’s really hard to see how Beth 2 people could possibly exist. But if fewer than Beth 2 people exist, then 0% of possible people exist, which would make the odds of my existence in particular zero. I’m not special—if 0% of possible people exist, it’s ridiculously unlikely I’d be one of the lucky few that exist.

This has been discussed on LessWrong several times recently, but you're you're using the wrong denominator when deciding that your existence in particular is unlikely compared to all other humans.

On way to demonstrate this: If I flip ... (read more)

The cases are non-symmetrical because a big universe makes my existence more likely but it doesn't make me more likely to get HTTTTTTTHTTHHTTTHTTTHTHTHTTHHTTTTTTHHHTHTTHTTTHHTTTTHTHTHHHHHTTTTHTHHHHTHHHHHHHTTTTHHTHHHTHTTTTTHTTTHTTHHHTHHHTHHTHTHTHTHTHHTHTHTTHTHHTTHTHTTHHHHHTTTTTTHHTHTTTTTHHTHHTTHTTHHTTTHTTHTHTTHHHTTHHHTHTTHHTTHTTTHTHHHTHHTHHHHTHHTHHHTHHHHTTHTTHTHHTHTTHTHHTTHHTTHHTH.  The most specific version of the evidence is I get those sequence of coin flips, which is unaffected by the number of people, rather than that someone does that.  My view follows trivially from the widely adopted SIA which I argued for in the piece--it doesn't rely on some basic math error.

Why think that my existence is very likely if there’s a God? Simple: God would create all possible people. It’s good to create a person and give them a good life. There’s nothing stopping God from creating any person, so he’d make them all. God would make anything that’s worth making, and every person is worth making, so God would make every person.

It seems like the world we inhabit argues against this. I'd expect there to be a lot more people (who are on-average happier) if a pro-natalist benevolent-and-aware-of-humans God existed.

You could argue that God... (read more)

If theism is true then all possible people exist but they're not all here.  SIA gives you a reason to think many exist but says nothing about where they'd be.  Theism predicts a vast multiverse. 

If the expected number of future paperclips is astronomical, shouldn't you be short paperclip futures, not long?

... I'll see myself out.

The thing I'm picturing here is a futures contract where charizard-shirt-guy is obligated to deliver 3 trillion paperclips in exchange for one soul. And, assuming a reasonable discount rate, this is a better deal than only receiving a handful of paperclips now in exchange for the same soul. (I agree that you wouldn't want to invest in a current-market-price paperclip futures contract.)

I just got around to reading this in my RSS reader (I rarely have time to read something of this length), and I was sad to see that the original was removed. I don't really have anything important to say but I think these posts have been interesting.

At the moment, I just don't see the incentive of doing something like this. I was hoping to make it more efficient through community feedback; see if my technique gives only me a photographic memory etc. Mnemonics is just not something that interests LW at the moment, I guess.  Additionally, my previous two (2) posts were stolen by a few AI Youtubers. I'd prefer the technique I revealed in this third post not to be stolen too.  I'm pursuing sample data elsewhere in the meantime to test efficacy. 

It seems like a major problem that you don't consider pleasure/suffering at all. Wouldn't this framework consider it extremely good if you could increase everyone's lifespan by one day in exchange for making them feel intense pain at every moment until then?

1Thomas Gjøstøl21d
This is a point I probably should've addressed directly, thank you for bringing it up. The point you make is a direct opposite of the frequent (and I think valid) critique of Utilitarianism, which - as you probably know - use pleasure/pain as its primary way of evaluating outcome. You are correct, as written I do not directly state a preference for pleasure versus pain, but rather indirectly include it in the maximization of the Core Values. However, I think your interpretation is an understandable one given the limitations in my text, if we only think of the Core Values in purely materialistic terms without including the cognitive dimension - an essential component in evaluating the Goodness of any action. Reliable pleasure and general absence of intense pain I would say are natural priorities in most activites, perhaps especially as a component of Actualization and Flourishing. I also think the extensive negative concequences intense pain would entail by lowering Awareness, Rationality and Agency, and the concequent reduction in the Products, Activities and Qualities of Life, makes me strongly doubt that the scenario you present would be a net benefit to Life - like you intuit. As I pointed out early on in my text, Maximize Life is not a simple preference for the amount of Life. My theory attempts to include all dimensions, not letting anything "slip" so to speak, evaluating things holistically. Still, I think your question deserves a more definitive answer with regards to pleasure/pain. In my possible future chapter 'Emotions', I postulate that the Core Values of Life directly corrolate with our emotional experience - that emotions ARE how we do holistic evaluations, both of ourselves, others, and actions - everything. So in a way, the maximization of Life is also the maximization of positive emotions and minimization of negative ones. However, negative emotions are required for proper navigation of reality and general functioning, like how we learn to avoi

I don't know the right keywords to search for it, but there's a related network security technique where you monitor your incoming/outgoing bandwidth ratio and shut things down if it suddenly changes. I think it's typically done by heuristics though.

Maybe Network Behavior Anomaly Detection (NBAD)?

Yeah, it turns out to be really important that psychopaths usually aren't very smart. Making it easier for dumb people to do really bad things seems.. bad.

I'm not sure if all of these descriptions would pass the ideological turning test, but I upvoted because I think the post is broadly right and interesting.

(For example, Object-Level theory is the closest to how I feel about this, but I don't think thinking about rationality is a failure mode exactly (although there is a type of thinking about rationality that I do think is a failure mode).)

I personally think that the chance that covid-19 was created in a lab in Wuhan is exceptionally high, perhaps 93%, and there are various skeptical experts who think it is now beyond reasonable doubt that the Wuhan Lab created covid-19.

This might have already been covered somewhere, but I'm curious what makes you think COVID-19 was created in a lab and not a natural virus leaked while they were studying it.

Update: Roko wrote a whole post about this.

Sorry, I misread this. I don't have a strong opinion. I think it's plausible that it was a lab leak of a natural virus, though I will note that the more technical people are more skeptical of this, claiming that covid-19 was unusually good at spreading through humans even from the start, which is unlikely for a fully natural spillover. If I knew more about the details of virology, I would have a stronger opinion.
Well, be Bayesian about it. Create a virus in a natural spillover event; what is the chance that that spillover happens within a few miles of the lab that is studying the virus?

I'll make a note to blur them or something, but I suspect anyone with the motivation to copy my keys from the internet could probably pick any of these locks too.

Oh yeah, that's a good idea. You'd need to find a sufficiently small carabiner (most actually-good ones are pretty big), and I think you'd need to put the keys on larger rings than I used to be able to get a carabiner through them. I think if you wanted a stronger system that would work, although it might end up being bulkier.

I'm not really worried about strength myself though. The carabiners are probably not as strong as the listing says (15 kg max weight), but I only need them to hold the weight of a couple keys.

If your point is just that "some expensive things aren't just status symbols, and worth the price even to the merely middle class," fine, I agree with that in general, though perhaps not in the specifics.

This is how I read the argument: Hiring a house cleaner is actually a reasonable thing for a middle-class American to do. Note that "middle class American" is still objectively ridiculously rich.

I do think there's something weird about treating $25k+ cars and hundreds of dollars per month on restaurants and alcohol normal, but drawing the line at $100 per month for house cleaning.

It seems worth calling out that Scott isn't saying that orthagonality is impossible, just claiming that it's harder than non-orthagonality:

Yes, there could be a superintelligence that cared for nothing but maximizing paperclips—in the same way that there exist humans with 180 IQs, who’ve mastered philosophy and literature and science as well as any of us, but who now mostly care about maximizing their orgasms or their heroin intake. But, like, that’s a nontrivial achievement! When intelligence and goals are that orthogonal, there was normally some effort

... (read more)
Okay, a "hard zone" rather than a no-go zone.  Which begs the question "How hard?" and consequently how much comfort should one take in the belief? Thank you for reading and commenting.

Why do you think the link to investment strategy is silly? I just found this article last night and thought it was really useful, so if it's giving me bad intuitions that would be good to know.

Isn't real life somewhat like games #3 and #5 (the game doesn't go on forever, but the "dealer" decides when you die quit), and applying the trick from game #6 really does help?

It's silly because real investing doesn't have consistent, known outcome probabilities, nor independent trials that multiply together that simply.  Causal reasons outside the initial payout estimate hold FAR MORE sway than the casino-game-like toy problems would suggest. No monetary activity in real life works like #3 - sure, you don't know when you die, but you have MANY choices of what games to play while living, and you can change the games you play at will.  In that sense, it's a little like #5, but in reality there are a whole lot of non-monetary factors that matter, as long as your money is reasonably in range of your perceived peer group. Game 6 shows the value of independent bets - you would achieve the same thing with one bet, run twice as often.  The misleading part here is just how independent each bet (and each iteration of a bet-sequence) is.  Sure, diversification of investments reduces variance, but this example is a pretty strange way to demonstrate it.

Sorry, I wasn't sure the right way to do a link post without just copying the whole thing (which I don't have permission to do) but there's way more in the link. I tried to edit it to make it more obvious that this is an excerpt.

The game you want to play is #5 I think:

Start with $100 and play with the same rules as game #3, but this time, you get to decide what percent of your payout is wagered. I still decide when to quit.

Edit: I decided to remove the whole excerpt.

I don't think I ever ran into that when I was younger. Meeting in houses is the original way Christians met, so I think it would be weird to complain about it. I found it pretty common for people to make fun of the opposite. If you're spending your church money on a big fancy building, does that really show your dedication to church teachings like charity*?

Also, people might accuse a really small church group of being culty, but a small church group with a big fancy building feels much cultier than the same group meeting in a house.

I was only really expose... (read more)

I went to a bunch of churches when I was younger, and I think the types of locations you listed are actually in a fairly typical order for starting a new church:

  1. The founding members meet in someone's house. One nice thing regarding space is that the more of your founders have kids, the more likely it is that one or more has a house big enough to host this. I think at this stage it's common to rotate though a small set of locations though.
  2. Once you're too big to meet at a house, rent a cheap event space. The church I went to for most of my life rented the
... (read more)
1mako yass2mo
I remember hearing shade against congregations that meet in someone's house ("that's not a church that's a cult"), but that was in religious circles. I guess seculars will be more understanding as to why the congregation has not been around long enough to own land.

For the record, I'm not arguing against a land value tax in general. I actually think an LVT is reasonable idea if you can actually figure out how to determine land value. I just think this particular argument for an LVT has in incorrect premise, and the links used to support it don't actually support it.

I think the two cruxes of our disagreement are, first that I think you are saying that you know why homes are vacant. These two quotes claim that houses are being left vacant for speculation:

At the same time, vast brownfield sites which could be develope

... (read more)
Thanks for this comment-it explains your view very clearly and I understand what you are getting at now. I think its a fair criticism. I've added footnotes within the post, linking people to your comment.

Ah I missed that. Thanks!

I still think it's a problem that this argument rests on the idea that investors are irrationally not renting land they own, but you don't provide any evidence for that.

As I try to look into this more, I'm also finding that the vacancy rate seems really low in England. 676,304 vacant homes / 24.9 million total homes gives a vacancy rate of 2.7%, which is lower than every city in the United States except for Gilbert, AZ according to this article, although it's possible vacancy is being defined differently?

Why is the ratio (vacant homes/total homes) the right thing to look at, if a single metric is to be considered for argument?
I disagree. Firstly, even if, they were renting out their land, this would still be bad, for reasons described in the article (landlords extract land rent without doing anything productive etc.) The section of the post which argues about empty homes rests on the fact that there are empty homes and a land tax would reduce them. I then provide evidence that there are, indeed, a significant number of empty homes in the UK. I do not speculate about the rationality/irrationality of the people holding them because it is irrelevant to the argument. Do you disagree on the 700,000 figure?  Is your view something like 'I find it hard to believe that people would leave houses empty because they are leaving money on the table. Therefore I disbelieve the 700,000 empty homes figure.'? If so, I guess I'm not super interested in disputing the government figures. Or is your view something like 'The argument in the post hinges on the fact that people are irrationally leaving homes empty and the author of the post needs to explain why they aren't behaving rationally in order to make the argument work.'? If so, hopefully I explained why the argument rests on the fact that empty homes exist, not the rationality/irrationality of the people holding them. For what its worth, I find it pretty easy to believe that people are leaving homes empty. People often behave 'irrationally' when it comes to money: a lot of people gamble and most people have their savings in a low-interest account. I know at least two middle class families who own a flat in a city where they don't live. They visit it maybe once a year and occasionally let friends visit. They aren't super interested in squeezing it for every penny its worth and don't want to sell it for sentimental reasons and they know the price will go up so they keep it as is. They think that renting it out would cause them too much stress and they don't feel that they need any more money and they enjoy visiting it so they don't rent it out . Is t

You claim in two places that empty land is being held for speculative purposes. This doesn't make any sense to me (why would I refuse to rent my properties to push up the value of someone else's properties?), so I followed your links to investigate. The first link seems to just be a general purpose NIMBY article arguing against redevelopement, and I didn't see anything about keeping houses vacant. The second link is to a Scottish political campaign that doesn't claim to know why the houses are empty (at least on this page) and doesn't contain the 700,000 n... (read more)

The phrase '700,000 empty homes throughout' the UK has different links for each word: one for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. If you follow the link on 700,000, you will be taken to this page which gives a figure of 676,304 empty homes in England. Add this to the Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales figures and you get a total over 700,000. As explained in the link for English data (which makes up most of the total), the figure comes from Council tax data (council taxes are paid by the owners of a property and charges different rates depending on whether the home is occupied or unoccupied). Hope this helps!

I think this answer is missing the point of the question. The deficit gets paid either way, it's just a question of whether it's paid via money printing or taxes. Ignoring money for a moment, any time the government uses resources to do stuff, someone else has to not use those resources. Money is system for allocating those resources, but changes in the money supply can't (directly) change the amount of resources available, and in a frictionless, spherical economy, there's no difference between taxes and inflation.

On the one hand, I probably do miss the point economically. On the other hand, paying the deficit via money printing vs paying it via taxes creates a very different subjective experience to individuals with lower macroeconomic literacy, which is probably a majority of taxpayers and voters. Subjective experiences inform reactions (spending behavior, voting behavior, criminal behavior, etc), and group reactions inform if and how a policy actually plays out in practice.

I thought this was useful and I'm interested to see what the next parts are.

My feedback is that the post would be improved by skipping the disclaimer and introduction. The post is already long and spending 1/5th of it on meta commentary will likely cause some people to bounce off before they get to the content.

It also feels kind of like a bait and switch because the post isn't about photographic memories, but maybe you're building up to that?

You also don't need to worry about being new to the site in general. The kind of new-person content that tends to get downvoted is usually crank theories or people being condescending.

Got it, will do. Thanks.  And yes, I am building up to it haha. The Solakios technique is my own contribution to the discourse and will come about in [Part V]. I'm trying to explain how I got there before just giving the answer away. I think if people see my thought process, and the research behind it, they'll be more convinced by the conclusion.  I think when dealing with something like 'photographic memory' which is a highly sought after skill, but has not actually been taught (those 'self-help guru's' have poisoned the idea of it) you have to be systematic. People are more than justified in being critical of these posts until I've justified how I got there.

I haven't finished reading it, but I wonder how A City on Mars would compare. I think the authors make some of the same arguments (including that space settlement probably won't be more free than Earth), but they're arguing from the perspective of people who think space settlements would be awesome.

In previous studies, we consistently find an equalizing effect from use of LLMs. High performers improve, but low performers improve a lot more.

Now we have a study that finds the opposite effect.

I was just talking to a math teacher last night about something similar. He was talking about how COVID really hurt math learning and the lowest performers aren't recovering from it (doing even worse than pre-COVID low-performers). I had been talking to him about how I use ChatGPT to learn things (and find it particularly helpful for math), so I asked if he thought... (read more)

I would worry a lot about taste and "texture", especially if you're going to use industrial processes to remove alcohol and add something else. Alcohol-removed beer and wine exist, but mostly taste terrible. Alcohol-free spirits typically taste like water, so replacing those would have more to do with how well they can hold flavorful compounds in solution.

Terrible-tasting drinks that make you drunk would really only be a replacement for Everclear, and the market for that is fairly small.

I think that in general, there aren't many examples of large portions of a large company suddenly switching what they're working on (on a timescale of days/weeks), and this seems pretty hard to pull off without very strong forces in play.

I think this is actually easier and more common than you'd expect for software companies (see "reorgs" in the non-layoff sense). People get moved between wildly different teams all the time, and sometimes large portions of the company do this at once. It's unusual to reorg your biggest teams, but I think it could be don... (read more)

Yeah I think showing the pattern is helpful, but I like the version where instead of showing the (under dispute) 1 term, you show the division pattern, like in this video

Essentially the argument is that x^(n-1) = x^n / x applies in every other case, so why not apply it for x^0 also?

For me it was also helpful to point out that you could define x^0 = 0 (and in fact, some fields leave 0^0 undefined), but it would cause all kinds of other problems you'd have to account for and make arithmetic a lot harder and less useful.

Technically, you could define 2+2=5, but that would cause a lot of problems everywhere. :D I agree that sometimes the definitions are motivated by "how do you intend to use that, and which definition will make your job easier?" But I think that situations with two meaningfully different answers are rare. I imagine there is often either one good answer, or one good answer that brings some problems along (such as introducing a new type of number) so some people choose to leave it undefined. For example: * 1/0 is either undefined, or we introduce some notion of "infinity" * 0/0 is probably better left undefined, or some kind of "error" value * square root of -1 is either undefined, or we introduce complex numbers * a sum of zero numbers is = 0 * a product of zero numbers is = 1 * a union of zero sets is = empty * an intersection of zero sets is either undefined, or the entire universe (if such thing exists) * 0! = 1 * x^0 = 1 ...maybe unless x = 0, in which case one might reasonable argue also for 0 * parallel lines either do not intersect, or they "intersect at infinity" * infinity minus one is either undefined, or we introduce surreal numbers Maybe I just selected examples that support my point. Feel free to add examples to contrary. Seems to me that 0^0 is the only case where one could successfully argue for both "0^0=1" and "0^0=0" depending on whether you see it as a limit for "x^0" or a limit for "0^x". (Even here I feel that the former choice is somehow better, because it also extends to negative x.) (In set theory, there is a disagreement about which axioms to use, and it seems to be resolved as "agree to disagree" but I am not an expert.)

ACX shared these rebuttals that explain why Gino's defence doesn't make sense:

I don't think these covers the calcChain part, which I'm now convinced is less damning than everything else, but it is still additional evidence (either the rows were swapped manually, or Excel just happened to recalculate the out-of-order rows in the most suspicious possible way).

One of my favorite math moments was actually a teacher explaining that some aspects of math are a social construct. Specifically, I was confused about why x^0 = 1 and not 0. There's a lot of good reasons for this, but rather than starting with those, he pointed out that you could define it that way if you wanted to, and mathemeticians have just agreed on the 1 definition (and then he went into how the 1 definition is much more useful).

I remember getting the same answer to the same question at school and being quite surprised. If I was asked the question now I would show the interested student this pattern, and ask them what makes sense for the last term. x^3 = 1*x*x*x x^2 = 1*x*x x^1 = 1*x x^0 = ? (if they are still unconvinced invite them to approach 0 from the other side) x^(-3) = ((1/x)/x)/x      [up to brackets = 1/x/x/x] x^(-2) = (1/x)/x            [1/x/x] x^(-1) = 1/x In some ways the negative powers (if the student already knows those) are cleaner, because the implicit factor of 1 is made explicit in fractions. Although the need for brackets makes the pattern less elegant.   I think the main reason the  x^0 = 0 definition is awful is that it means you can no longer rely on the fact that x^n * x^m = x^(n+m)  (because for n=0 the left hand side is zero, but the right hand side is x^m, which may or may not be zero). Although I think that (depending on the age of the student) this might not be the best explanation.
The one I like is that for cardinal (counting) numbers, x^y counts the number of functions from a set of y elements to one with x elements. This is very foundational to how powers are defined in the first place, and in many ways even more foundational than addition and multiplication. If y is empty (regardless of x), then there is exactly one such: the empty function. So x^0 = 1 for all cardinal numbers x including x=0 and all the natural numbers, but also all the infinite cardinalities as well. From there you can extend to integers, rational numbers, reals, and so on.
Just to check, did you here mean 0^0 ? It's been a while since I did much math, but I thought that was the one that counterintuitively equals 1. Whereas 0^1=1 just seems like it would create an unwelcome exception to the x^1=x rule.

I find LessWrong really useful for learning things, but it's also become kind of overwhelming, especially because a lot of people don't start posts with a summary so I can't quickly filter. My RSS feed has about 500 unread LessWrong posts and I doubt I'll read more than 1/5th of them after summarizing.

I'm thinking of writing my own software to run posts through an LLM to get a one-paragraph summary. I'm tempted to try to filter by feed by tag, but that's too high level (I can't follow in-the-weeds AI safety research, but I do want to read certain kinds of high-level technical posts).

LLM summaries aren't yet non-hallucinatory enough that we've felt comfortable putting them on the site, but we have run some internal experiments on this. 

Yeah, I just came to this post from my RSS reader (Feedbin) and it says I'm subscribed to

Why though? They have a capped profit model (theoretically) so there's less value in this strategy, and their biggest investor would probably prefer that people use Bing instead.

1O O3mo
News is the cap grows 20% a year so it will really last until AGI
2Gerald Monroe3mo
General AI services is a natural monopoly. It has a large fixed cost to develop a competitive model, and lower marginal costs to deliver. The best* model will have the most paying customers. It's a monopoly flywheel, the monopoly niche occupant reinvests in the most compute and the best engineers for model improvement, and the N+1 model is even more dominant and so on. There is second network effect involved in hosting platforms for AI services. This can be an even strongest monopoly. Assuming the "app store" has some common copyrighted APIs for intercommunication between AI tools, it could make it impractical for companies offering models on the store to sell their wares anywhere else. This sends revenue to the monopoly platform owner even after they no longer offer the best model. OpenAI seems to be pursuing both avenues like any for profit startup would. Their board has recently voted to lift the profit cap by 20 percent per year. ( ) *Refusing certain services, and refusing to offer long term guarantees, such as forever access to a frozen weight model, means openAI is leaving the door open to be evicted from this market niche.
  • It's defeats the purpose of AI, so realistically no one will do it
  • It doesn't actually solve the problem if the AI is deceptive

I'm not convinced we can safely run AGI, with or without a human in the loop. That's what the alignment problem is.

Then maybe the alignment problem is a stupid problem to try to solve? I don't believe this, and have spent the past five years working on the alignment problem. But your argument certainly seems like a general purpose argument that we could and should surrender our moral duties to a fancy algorithm as a cost-saving measure, and that anyone who opposes that is a technophobe who Does Not Get the Science.

Section 2.3 seems to be the part that addresses alignment, and the proposed solution is to use reinforcement learning (train the AI on examples of what humans would do) and then to give up (either by leaving a human in the loop forever or just deciding that turning people into paperclips really is better).

The way these kinds of problems keep getting buried deep in the writing (sometimes through linked PDF's) makes me I really think this is some sort of Sokal-hoax-style prank.

What's so bad about keeping a human in the loop forever? Do we really think we can safely abdicate our moral responsibilities?

I don't think the raw number is the problem. If someone writes too many posts in general, they'll start to get ignored, not heavily downvoted.

There is a risk of being seen as a spammer if there are too many posts of dubious quality.

I would expect some efficiency gains from not having to carry a diesel generator with you, and some efficiency gains from not needing to design it to fit on a train (my understanding is that bigger generators tend to be more efficient).

There are also efficiency gains from being able to run the generators continuously, which justifies spending more on them. Combined-cycle gas turbines are more efficient than big diesel engines, and their fuel is cheaper.

Interestingly, your credit card company probably doesn't care if someone steals a small amount of money from them. I'm guessing the rule you ran into was actually to prevent people who buy stolen card numbers from checking if the card still works.

This argument proves too much. A lot of people die of HIV, and more money would be spent curing it if more people had it. Therefore, it's a moral imperative to infect as many people with HIV as possible.

I think this is similar to the broken window economic argument because you're saying we should make something worse to redirect resources, but you're ignoring the value of the resources' current use. Ignoring the fact that there's already enough people dying of kidney disease to create a huge market, the money society doesn't spend on kidney disease is bein... (read more)

I came here to post a similar comment. I find it hard to believe that the person who wrote this post is "stupid".

It sounds to me like some sort of… intellectual dysphoia? Not unlike someone in the throes of bulimia; who despite evidence to the contrary, can not see themselves as thin enough. To the OP, I don’t think that is a hypothesis that you can dismiss. Aliefs are pernicious. All we can really do is work with the brain we have. It took me a bit to accept ADHD as a mental disability. Once I made the flip, I was better able to set realistic expectations, and request accommodations and use my tools as mental prosthesis. A lot less negative self-talk. It really is okay to be good enough.

If those resources were freed up, couldn't a lot of homelessness charities pivot to some other problem? You're not wishing their funders away.

Some things would be different, but a lot of the skills are the same (research, running organizations, running political campaigns, marketing, etc.).

They would need another problem to pivot to. Also, I suspect that such a pivot on an institutional scale is difficult to pull off. People often prioritize altruistic work because they're passionate about a specific cause - maybe they were homeless in the past, or they were a cancer survivor, etc. That wouldn't necessarily translate.

Users would find out about apps the same way they do now: Hearing about the apps from friends and/or media. If one dating app was much better than the others, people would hear about it from their friends, and people who don't have friends in the dating pool would hear about it from the media.

I also don't think it's a privacy issue to provide aggregate data about this. A dating app could run surveys asking people if they're still dating a person they met on the app. The harder part would be getting people to actually answer, but there's incentives you coul... (read more)

The existing dating websites do not have a reason to change -- their current websites generate profit.

Existing dating apps (presumably) make a profit now, but they could be making more profit if they were better, through a combination of pulling market share from their competitors, and bringing more people into the dating app scene (if dating apps had less of a reputation for being dystopian hellscapes).

There could be disincentives if they were too good at it (instantly pairing up all of their users into perfect marriages so the dating market dries up),... (read more)

2M. Y. Zuo4mo
How would a prospective user tell which dating site offer is genuine and which are just scams that also are charging a lot? It's not like anyone, even the bonafide sites, could provide hard evidence of successful long term relationships, since that would be a huge privacy issue.

I don't think mirrors are considered in safety tests at all. My understanding is that the only requirement is that you meet the tech specs defined in Section 571.111 - Standard No. 111; Rearview mirrors.. These are all physical properties like the size, mounting and reflectivity. The regulations don't require cars to have additional convex mirrors, so I think it's unsurprising that car manufacturers mostly don't bother to provide them.

I was never able to get this working in a way that was fully satisfying, but I made a note to try it again. I personally like how I can look through one mirror and have all of the information I need to do a lane change instead of needing to look at multiple.

Load More