Let's say we're in a Jevons paradox world. That's a world where powerful AI, or AGI, or whatever, exists, and doesn't steal everyone's job, due to Jevons paradox. > In economics, the Jevons paradox, or Jevons effect, is the tendency for technological improvements that increase the efficiency of a resource's...
At 2024's Manifest, Robin Hanson gave a talk (in his usual sweeping polymathic style) on cultural drift - a phenomenon for which he thinks "there's going to be hell to pay", and about which he is "scared, because this is a really big fundamental problem". Watch the recording of the...
Let's say we're in a Jevons paradox world.
That's a world where powerful AI, or AGI, or whatever, exists, and doesn't steal everyone's job, due to Jevons paradox.
In economics, the Jevons paradox, or Jevons effect, is the tendency for technological improvements that increase the efficiency of a resource's use to lead to a rise, rather than a fall, in total consumption of that resource. (Wikipedia)
Example: When steam engines became more efficient---requiring less coal---this (paradoxically?) led to an increase in demand for coal. And so, more coal was burned.
A lot of people worry that AI will steal our jobs. The common reply (citing Jevons) is that because AI will also make human labor much... (read 208 more words →)
For those who give significant weight to the possibility that morals are real, in the "actually have some effect on the universe" sense...
This sense of "real" is contested in contemporary philosophy. As a sketch, here are a few things that are often considered quite plausible:
If (1-3) are plausible, then it's also plausible that (4) moral facts are real. I'm not exactly offering this as an argument, but merely a set of (what contemporary philosophers consider to be, at least) plausible theses. A philosopher who accepts (4) will usually be referred to as a... (read more)
On the other hand, it's possible that objective morality exists but is not empirically obtainable knowledge in nature. If that was the case, the only other way I can imagine for that knowledge to work is by some kind of enlightenment or grace - an inherent inner knowledge that we all possess, or can possess if we achieve the right state of mind, not from observation of the outside world, but by introspection.
Mathematical knowledge is not empirical. By your reasoning, does mathematical knowledge therefore “work by some kind of enlightenment or grace”?
How many such cards do you usually make? In theory, there's an infinite number of forms for card content Z. And I personally find it too costly (cognitive effort, time) during card creation to brainstorm the various ways in which I might encounter Z in the future.
I've recently been wondering whether introducing randomness to flashcard content might also improve... something
Let me try:
On a busy sidewalk, your eyes lock for an instant with those of a cute stranger coming toward you, and then they pass. You stop and look back over your shoulder and see that they have done the same. You can see that this is purposeful—even if it’s not exactly clear what it's purpose is—and an attentive third person would see the same.
Hmm
Good post!
Another way to diminish/remove status from debates is to shift from adversarial to collaborative modes. I'd like to see more experiments on "collaborative" debates. Here's an idea, pulling from this community: Crux Speedruns. Participants with opposing view on A must work together to find the crux of their disagreement as quickly as possible. Their team's time is added to the speedrun leaderboard.
Interesting, thanks for the work and the writeup. Two naive questions:
Thanks
At 2024's Manifest, Robin Hanson gave a talk (in his usual sweeping polymathic style) on cultural drift - a phenomenon for which he thinks "there's going to be hell to pay", and about which he is "scared, because this is a really big fundamental problem".
Watch the recording of the 30:00 minute talk here (followed by Q&A).
His argument is roughly the following: