Piccione and Rubinstein (2007) have developed a ‘jungle model'. In contrast to standard general equilibrium models, the jungle model endows each agent with power. If someone has greater power, they can simply take stuff from those with less power. The resulting equilibrium has some nice properties, including that it exists, and that it is also Pareto efficient.

Here is one easy way to improve everyday Bayesian reasoning: use natural frequencies instead of probabilities. Consider two ways of communicating a situation:

Probability format

• 1% of women have breast cancer
• If a woman has breast cancer, there's an 70% chance the mammogram is positive
• If a woman does not have breast cancer, there's a 10% chance the mammogram is positive.

Natural frequency format

• Out of 1,000 women, 10 have breast cancer
• Of those 10 who have cancer, 7 test positive
• Of the 990 without cancer, 99 test positive

For each of the two formats above, ask this question to a group of people: "A woman tests positive. What is the probability she has cancer?". Which do you think gives better results?

References

• Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: frequency formats. Psychological review, 102(4), 684.
• Hoffrage, U., Lindsey, S., Hertwig, R., & Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Communicating statistical information. Science, 290(5500), 2261-2262.
• Hoffrage, U., Gigerenzer, G., Krauss, S., & Martignon, L. (2002). Representation facilitates reasoning: What natural frequencies are and what they are not. Cognition, 84(3), 343-352.

Communication note: writing EG instead of e.g. feels unnecessarily confusing to me.

In this context, EG probably should be reserved for Edmund Gettier:

Gettier problems or cases are named in honor of the American philosopher Edmund Gettier, who discovered them in 1963. They function as challenges to the philosophical tradition of defining knowledge of a proposition as justified true belief in that proposition. The problems are actual or possible situations in which someone has a belief that is both true and well supported by evidence, yet which — according to almost all epistemologists — fails to be knowledge. Gettier’s original article had a dramatic impact, as epistemologists began trying to ascertain afresh what knowledge is, with almost all agreeing that Gettier had refuted the traditional definition of knowledge. – https://iep.utm.edu/gettier/

@Hastings ... I don't think I made a comment in this thread -- and I don't see one when I look. I wonder if you are replying to a different one? Link it if you find it?

This diagram from page 4 of "Data Poisoning the Zeitgeist: The AI Consciousness Discourse as a pathway to Legal Catastrophe" conveys the core argument quite well:

I’m about to start reading “Fifty Year of Research on Self-Replication" (1998) by Moshe Sipper. I have a hunch that the history and interconnections therein might be under-appreciated in the field of AI safety. I look forward to diving in.

A quick disclosure of some of my pre-existing biases: I also have a desire to arm myself against the overreaching claims and self-importance of Stephen Wolfram. A friend of mine was “taken in” by Wolfram’s debate with Yudkowsky… and it rather sickened me to see Wolfram exerting persuasive power. At the same time, certain of Wolfram’s rules are indeed interesting, so I want to acknowledge his contributions fairly.

Sorry for the confusion. :P ... I do appreciate the feedback. Edited to say: "I'm noticing evidence that many of us may have an inaccurate view of the 1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm. I say this after reading..."

I have also seen conversations get derailed based on such disagreements.

I expect to largely adopt this terminology going forward

May I ask to which audience(s) you think this terminology will be helpful? And what particular phrasing(s) do you plan on trying out?

The quote above from Chalmers is dense and rather esoteric; so I would hesitate to use its particular terminology for most people (the ones likely to get derailed as discussed above). Instead, I would seek out simpler language. As a first draft, perhaps I would say:

Let's put aside whether LLMs think on the inside. Let's focus on what we observe -- are these observations consistent with the word "thinking"?

Parties aren't real, the power must be in specific humans or incentive systems.

I would caution against saying "parties aren't real" for at least two reasons. First, it more-or-less invites definitional wars which are rarely productive. Second, when we think about explanatory and predictive theories, whether something is "real" (however you define it) is often irrelevant. What matters more is is the concept sufficiently clear / standardized / "objective" to measure something and thus serve as some replicable part of a theory.

Humans have long been interested in making sense of power through various theories. One approach is to reduce it to purely individual decisions. Another approach involves attributing power to groups of people or even culture. Models serve many purposes, so I try to ground these kinds of discussions with questions such as:

• Are you trying to predict a person's best next action?
• Are you trying to design a political or institutional system such that individual power can manifest in productive ways?
• Are you trying to measure the effectiveness of a given politician in a given system, keeping in mind the practical and realistic limits of their agency?

These are very different questions, leading to very different models.

I'm noticing evidence that many of us may have an inaccurate view of the 1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm. I say this after reading "Did Stanislav Petrov save the world in 1983? It's complicated". The article is worth reading; it is a clear and detailed ~1100 words. I've included some excerpts here:

[...] I must say right away that there is absolutely no reason to doubt Petrov's account of the events. Also, there is no doubt that Stanislav Petrov did the right thing when he reported up the chain of command that in his assessment the alarm was false. That was a good call in stressful circumstances and Petrov fully deserves the praise for making it.

But did he literally avert a nuclear war and saved the world? In my view, that was not quite what happened. (I would note that as far as I know Petrov himself never claimed that he did.)

To begin with, one assumption that is absolutely critical for the "saved the world" version of the events is that the Soviet Union maintained the so-called launch-on-warning posture. This would mean that it was prepared to launch its missiles as soon as its early-warning system detects a missile attack. This is how US system works and, as it usually happens, most people automatically assume that everybody does the same. Or at least tries to. This assumption is, of course, wrong. The Soviet Union structured its strategic forces to absorb a nuclear attack and focused on assuring retaliation - the posture known as "deep second strike" ("ответный удар"). The idea was that some missiles (and submarines) will survive an attack and will be launched in retaliation once it is over.

[...] the Soviet Union would have waited for actual nuclear detonations on its soil. Nobody would have launched anything based on an alarm generated by the early-warning system, let alone by only one of its segments - the satellites.

[...] It is certain that the alarm would have been recognized as false at some stages. But even if it wasn't, the most radical thing the General Staff (with the involvement of the political leadership) would do was to issue a preliminary command. No missiles would be launched unless the system detected actual nuclear detonations on the Soviet territory.

Having said that, what Stanislav Petrov did was indeed commendable. The algorithm that generated the alarm got it wrong. The designers of the early-warning satellites took particular pride in the fact that the assessment is done by computers rather than by humans. So, it definitely took courage to make that call to the command center up the chain of command and insist that the alarm is false. We simply don't know what would have happened if he kept silence or confirmed the alarm as positive. And, importantly, he did not know it either. He just did all he could to prevent the worst from happening.

I haven't made a thorough assessment myself. For now, I'm adding The Dead Hand to my reading list.

Edited on 2025-12-25 to improve clarity of the first point. Thanks to readers for the feedback.