Many note taking apps allow you to attach a picture. You could take notes with a pen when it is inappropriate to use your phone, then take a picture of those notes and attach them to an entry in the app. Those notes are then digitally searchable.
Six months ago I reverted to carrying and using a notebook. Prior to that I'd been using OneNote on my phone, with some success. The main reasons I began using a notebook again are: 1) when thinking about a particular problem I like to attempt describe its features in words, with a graph, and with math, where possible; 2) I find that I think slightly more clearly when I have to use a pen, and tend to be able to recall it better - not sure why this is.
I use a notebook that is about one third wider, slighter longer, and around three times thicker than my p...
My impression is that you are now evading questions and being deliberately provocative; but I'll play...
If the rate economic growth were to increase by x35, would you think you were in a runaway scenario?
I did not mean to imply that situation in quote 1 would happen within the timeframe of quote 2, and I don't think i did. It's a thought experiment and I think that is clear.
And, by the way, understanding that you lost control is how you know you're in a runaway scenario.
There are examples of this in real history from smart people who thought we'd lost control - see Samuel Butler. We have, arguably. The extent to which machines are now integral to continued economic prosperity is irreversible without unbearable costs (people will die).
We are talking about a runaway scenario in a human civilization, aren't we?
I don't think that's possible. Do you? A runaway means a massive and ongoing boost in productivity. That seems achievable only by AI, full brain emulations, or transhumans that are much smarter and faster at doing stuff than humans can be.
So what does it mean?
I was agreeing (mostly). My point was that by that definition we could never predict, or even know that we are in the middle of, a runway scenario. I did pose it as a question and you did not reply with an answer. So wh...
Precisely! So focus on the middle of the distribution, not the extremes.
No reason? How about humans?
So we're talking about a human based runaway scenario? That's not gonna happen.
Um. Runaway progress does not stall by defintion -- think about what "runaway" means.
OK, that's what 'runaway' growth means. Can this even be predicted. I think not. How could you possibly ever know that you're in a runaway? The transition from agriculture to industry saw an increase in economic growth roughly 65 times faster. I think if we saw global output accelerate by even half that in the next 20 years most would be calling a runaway scenario.
I don't think this would be runaway technological progress
No reason to think it won't be runaway technological progress, depending on how you define runaway. The industrial revolution was runaway technological progress. Going from an economic output doubling time of 1000 years to 15 years is certainly runway. The rate of growth ultimately stalled but it was certainly runaway for that transitional period, even though there were stalls along the way.
Edited to add link.
If you haven't already seen a version of this talk by Robin Hanson, the first 20 minute...
I see. The demand side story. I suppose it is technically feasible but I find it unlikely in the extreme. There is nothing in history to suggest it and I don't think it fits with psychology. History is full of examples of how we won't want for anything after we have 'some foreseen progress'. We've had the luxury of being able to trade in some economic growth for more leisure, and still be better off than our grandparents, for a long time now, but haven't.
If the reasons are that we're running out of demand for improvement across the board, and people are
I'm not sure how you got from my comments that I don't understand exponential growth. But let me remake the point more clearly. The doubling time of economic growth has remained stable at around 15 years. The doubling time of computational processing speed has remained roughly stable at around 24 months. I agree that economic growth in developed economies in the last 20 years has come largely from tech progress . But it has not had an effect on the rate of economic growth.
I would say that it's only happened because of exponential technological progress;
This is my view too. A good portion of the people in my life are addicted to something at any given time by this broader definition. I've experienced short periods of it myself ranging from gaming to geeking out way to much on a particular topic at the expense of proper food and sleep. I see it as a result of access to an ever increasing range of pleasure induces experiences at ever lower costs and hyperbolic discounting - too much of a good thing with blinders to future costs.
On what Gunnar_Zarncke has named Extreme Curiosity: "Be a philosopher; but, amidst all your philosophy, be still a man.". -David Hume
As we shift from one paradigm of advancement to another, we may still have exponential growth, but the exponent for the new exponential growth paradigm may be quite different.
Won't the rate of economic growth be different (much larger) by definition? I can't envisage a scenario where economic growth could be roughly as it is now or slower but we have experienced anything even approaching a technological singularity. Think of the change in growth rates resulting from the farming and industrial revolutions.
Something to puzzle over is the fact we have seen computational grunt grow exponentially for decade upon decade yet economic growth has been stable over the same period.
My experience is from Australia where things are a little different yet the same patterns emerge in returns to these majors.
All Australian universities offer undergraduate business majors, from the top to the bottom. Typically a Bachelor of Commerce in which a student will take intro courses on accounting, finance, economics, management etc and select a major for the remainder of credits. Universities with large econ departments often offer a Bachelor of Economics, alternatively or in addition to Commerce which covers more ground in econ but less in other ...
True, but why the focus on elite colleges and investment banks? I think if you took out all grads employed by investment banks from all of the categories listed in the tables above you'd see the same pattern.
That's true, but employers are often looking for a skill set in additional to potential. Also, the interviewers are more likely majors from a business field than a philosophy grad and so can more easily evaluate suitability and potential based on a shared set of knowledge.
Finally I realized that non-nerds actually find listening easier than reading.
A lot of nerds listen to podcast. I'd estimate 80% plus of my communication is textual and that includes with family, and I'm a father.
I listen to several hours of podcats per week. Podcasts aren't two way communication. Like text they can be left alone and returned to at will. They can be educational and or entertainment. My favourite podcasts are those which are mostly other people conversing with each other over some debatable ideas. Audiobooks can be good too. I mostly ...
The "genie out of the bottle" character of technological progress leads to some interesting possibilities. If suppliers think that future demand will be high, then they'll invest in research and development that lowers the long-run cost of production, and those lower costs will stick permanently, even if future demand turns out to be not too high.
Well, they might invest in r&d. If they can take adavatge to increasing returns to scale in meeting demand they'd likely just build more whatevers.
Assuming you like the resulting
First contribution here but I've been lurking since the move from Overcoming Bias. Play nice :) I think this is an important subject matter which few people are giving attention to so I thought I'd offer some comments that might assist.
My comment was deemed too long so I've Split it up. If that's bad form let me know. Considered removing quotations of the OP but it would make it too difficult to read.
If you are going to use pieces of standard microeconomics in future versions of this analysis it might be best to spend a bit more time defining them more...
Here's my take on "something to protect" from personal experience:
Finding something to protect is likely quite difficult for many people. I was certainly headed in that direction, and making progress, but after having a child my "power" leveled up by orders of magnitude (if not my ability to wield it). I didn't have a child for this purpose, and the magnitude of this effect was not knowable in advance, even if the sign seemed likely.
The fact of having a child does not make me more rational. It does, however, provide a very large incent... (read more)