How's that going? (Sincere question)
If, on the other hand, the counterfactual is "you get covid a few years later", then the loss of expected life does not occur.
What's the intuition here? If we believe that infection confers less immunity than immunization, naively the counterfactual looks more like "get covid N-1 times" vs "get covid N times." Rather than "get covid once now" vs "get covid once some time in the future"
Sorry, do you mean this is "obviously" true for all humans, or only frame controllers? If the latter, I would consider this form of understanding intents useful Bayesian evidence for someone being a frame controller.
Frame control is an effect; very often, people who frame control will not be aware that this is what they’re doing, and have extensive reasoning to rationalize their behavior that they themselves believe. If you are close to a frame controller and squinting at them to figure out “are they hiding intent to control me,” you often will find the answer is “no.”
I wonder if you can infer de facto intent from the consequences, ie, not the intents-that-they-think-they-had, but more the intents they actually had.In particular, a lot of motivated cognition oft... (read more)
Confused what "believe it" means.
Have people considered just making a survey and sending it out to former Leverage staff? This really isn't my scene but it seems like while surveys have major issues, it's hard for me to imagine that surveys are worse at being statistically representative than qualitative accounts that went through many selection filters,
Anna Salamon:So, I think... So, look, I - mm. It's hard to say all the things in all the orders at once. I'm going to say a different thing and then I'll [inaudible], sorry.So, once upon a time I heard from a couple junior staff members at CFAR that you were saying bad things to them about me and CFAR.Geoff Anders:Believe it.Anna Salamon:I forget. They weren't particularly false things. So that I don't accidentally [inaudible]-
Anna Salamon:So, I think... So, look, I - mm. It's hard to say all the things in all the orders at once. I'm going to say a different thing and then I'll [inaudible], sorry.
So, once upon a time I heard from a couple junior staff members at CFAR that you were saying bad things to them about me and CFAR.Geoff Anders:Believe it.Anna Salamon:I forget. They weren't particularly false things. So that I don't accidentally [inaudible]-
Thanks, appreciate the diagnosis!
Feels like a sleight-of-hand to me that your post did not make clear.
Hmm so framed another way, I think the claim is that capitalism previously had created inner optimizers in individuals interested in "high quality craftsmanship," but over time the alignment problem has been better solved with more optimization power and now individuals/companies are better optimized for selling goods. Does this sound like an accurate paraphrase of your position? (FWIW it sounds pretty plausible to me)
As clone of saturn noted, one need not posit a conspiracy for planned obsolescence to occur. The ordinary process of increasing profits combined with information asymmetry is more than sufficient. I wouldn't go as far as saying that the old products are better, but I'd suspect that over time, manufacturers starting placing greater emphasis on "what will sell" relative to "what represents high quality craftsmanship."
I understand how this can be an explanation for level effects, but not how this can explain the delta.
I think that model would not predict the result at 0:06, fwiw.
Because Moloch. If at least one major manufacturer add extra lifespan, that forces the others to compete. But the real profit-maximizing move for major manufacturers as a whole is to conspire into selling short-lived stoves.
Why would Moloch (the metaphorical God for "coordination problems are hard") be the appropriate metaphor for conspiracy?
Another common belief is that older cars are more crash-resistant than modern cars, with varying explanations. I'm not sure about this but I suspect the belief is very wrong, as can be evidenced by this crash test between a 1959 Chevy and 2009 Chevy.
They can do that, but there's no strong reason to believe that they did do that.
To be slightly more precise, I think I historically felt like I identify with like 60% of framings in the general MIRI cluster(at least the way it appears in public outputs) and now I'm like 80%+, and part of the difference here was that I already was pretty into stuff like empiricism, materalism, Bayesianism, etc, but I previously (not very reflectively) had opinions and intuitions in the direction of thinking myself as an computational instance, and these days I can understand the algorithmic framing much better (even though it's still not very intuitive/natural to me).(Numbers made up and not well thought out)
This sounds right to me. FDT feels more natural when I think of myself as an algorithm than when I think of myself as a computation, for example.
To clarify, are you saying that CFAR staff retreats don't involve circling?
I'm actually pretty surprised by this, the people I personally know in academia who aren't community members tend to a) be true believers about their impact or b) really love the problems they work on or their subfields or c) feel kind of burned. Liking academia for work-life balance reasons seem very surprising to me, even my friends in fields with a fair amount of free time (eg theoretical CS) usually believe that they can have an easier life elsewhere.
If you pick a randomly selected academic or hobby conference, I will be much more surprised that they had circling than if they had food.
Yeah I think this is a pretty important point. I pointed out this before here, here, and here (2 years ago). I personally still enjoyed the game as is. However I'm open to the idea that future Petrov Days should look radically different, and wouldn't have a gamefying element at all. But I think if we want a game that reflects the structure of Petrov's decision that day well in an honest way, I personally would probably want something that accounts for the following features:1. Petrov clearly has strong incentives and social pressures to push the button.
2. ... (read more)
As an example of the difficulties in illusions of transparency, when I first read the post, my first interpretation of "largely fake research" was neither of what you said or what jessicata clarified below but I simply assumed that "fake research" => "untrue," in the sense that people who updated from >50% of research from those orgs will on average have a worse Brier score on related topics. This didn't seem unlikely to me on the face of it, since random error, motivated reasoning, and other systemic biases can all contribute to having bad models of the world.
Since 3 people can have 4 different interpretations of the same phrase, this makes me worried that there are many other semantic confusions I didn't spot.
Are you including productivity/prescription drugs like off-label use of Adderrall or modafinil or only recreational drugs? I think the former is substantially less dangerous, as, among others, there's at least in theory substantially less motivated reasoning in users for wanting reasons to justify their use.
Agreed, there's two different errors here. One is conflating total harm with per-individual harm. The other, more subtle point you're alluding to is that a lot of the relative harms of alcohol/tobacco/etc has to do with frequency of use, which is a different question from whether doing X once in an individual or community setting is advisable.
I'm confused why there were ~40 comments in this subthread without anybody else pointing out this pretty glaring error of logical inference (unless I'm misunderstanding something)
A 2010 analysis concluded that psychedelics are causing far less harm than legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco. (Psychedelics still carry substantial risks, aren't for everybody, and should always be handled with care.)
? This is total harm, not per use. More people die of car crashes than from rabid wolves, but I still find myself more inclined to ride cars than ride rabid wolves as a form of transportation.
Just want to register that this comment seemed overly aggressive to me on a first read, even though I probably have many sympathies in your direction (that Leverage is importantly disanalogous to MIRI/CFAR)
What I'm talking about is a system of moral duties and obligations connected to an explicitly academic mission. Academia is older than the corporation, and is a separate world. It's very important not to confuse them, and I wish that corporations (and "research labs" associated with corporations) would state very clearly "we are in no way an academic institution".
To be clear, my own organization is a nonprofit. We are not interested in making money, nor in doing other things of low moral value. I currently think emulating the culture of normal compani... (read more)
Thanks so much for the response! I really appreciate it.
I'm assuming your institution wants to follow an academic model, including teaching, mentorship, hierarchical student-teacher relationships, etc.
I think we have more of a standard manager-managee hierarchal relationship, with the normal corporate guardrails plus a few more. We also have explicit lines of reporting for abuse or other potential issues to people outside of the organization to minimize potential coverups.
Here are my general thoughts:
An open question is when you have a duty of care
I'm kind... (read more)
Thanks for the outside perspective. If you're willing to go into more detail, I'm interested in a more detailed account from you on both what academia's safeguards are and (per gwillen's comment) where do you think academia's safeguards fall short and how that can be fixed.
This is decision-relevant to me as I work in a research organization outside of academia (though not working on AI risk specifically), and I would like us to both be more productive than typical in academia and have better safeguards against abuse.
If it helps, we have about 15 rese... (read more)
Sure. I'm really glad to hear. This is not my community, but you did explicitly ask.
This is just off the top of my head, and I don't mean it to be a final complete and correct list. It's just to give you a sense of some things I've encountered, and to help you and your org think about how to empower people and help them flourish. Academia uses a lot of these to avoid the geek-MOP-sociopath cycle.
I'm assuming your institution wants to follow an academic model, including teaching, mentorship, hiearchical student-teacher relationships, etc.
An open question is... (read more)
Thanks, appreciate the update!
Sorry, am I misunderstanding something? I think taking "clinically significant symptoms", specific to the UC system, as a given is wrong because it did not directly address either of my two criticisms:1. Clinically significant symptoms =/= clinically diagnosed even in worlds where there is a 1:1 relationship between clinically significant symptoms and would have been clinically diagnosed, as many people do not get diagnosed
2. Clinically significant symptoms do not have a 1:1 relationship with would have been clinically diagnosed.
Sorry, maybe this is too nitpicky, but clinically significant symptoms =/= clinically diagnosed, even in worlds where the clinically significant symptoms are severe enough to be diagnosed as such.
If you instead said in "population studies 30-40% of graduate students have anxiety or depression severe enough to be clinically diagnosed as such were they to seek diagnosis" then I think this will be a normal misreading from not jumping through enough links.
Put another way, if someone in mid-2020 told me that they had symptomatic covid and was formally diagnosed... (read more)
Ah, sorry, yes. Me being unclear on that was also bad. The phrasing you give is the one I intended to convey, though I sure didn't do it.
I want to remind people here that something like 30-40% of grad students at top universities have either clinically diagnosed [emphasis mine] depression or anxiety (link)
I'm confused about how you got to this conclusion, and think it is most likely false. Neither your link, the linked study, or the linked meta-analysis in the linked study of your link says this. Instead the abstract of the linked^3 meta-analysis says:
Among 16 studies reporting the prevalence of clinically significant symptoms of depression across 23,469 Ph.D. students, the pooled estimate
+1, except I was more physically and maybe socially close.
What does "magiteral" mean here? At any rate, you're free to be the change you want to see in the world. :)
It was a dirty job, he thought, but somebody had to do it. As he walked away, he wondered who that somebody might be.
It was a dirty job, he thought, but somebody had to do it.
As he walked away, he wondered who that somebody might be.
... if THE CLAIM is true then it brings to mind some potentially unkind questions about the psychological heath of a seemingly significant portion of the 'rationality community'.
So I think we have much stronger evidence of psychological health issues with the rationality community (which I assume is the same thing as the 'rationality community' though I'm uncertain) via things like the LW and SSC surveys. Perhaps you do not trust surveys because of self-report issues? But in that case I'd probably look at proxies like common correlates of mental healt... (read more)
My general feeling about this is that the information I know is either well-known or otherwise "not my story to tell."
I've had very few direct interactions with Leverage except applying to Pareto, a party or two, and some interactions with Leverage employees (not Geoff) and volunteers. As is common with human interactions, I appreciated many but not all of my interactions.Like many people in the extended community, I've been exposed to a non-overlapping subset of accounts/secondhand rumors of varying degrees of veracity. For some things it's be... (read more)
In his first scene, Thrawn is fighting some Imperial troops which are camped in the forest. He figures out that their shield system must let through small forest animals, or they’d be constantly dealing with false alarms. So he tapes bombs to squirrels and blows up the Imperial camp.Now, I have no idea if this is a legitimately clever military tactic, or if it makes sense that Thrawn is the first person to think of it. I’m not a tactician.
In his first scene, Thrawn is fighting some Imperial troops which are camped in the forest. He figures out that their shield system must let through small forest animals, or they’d be constantly dealing with false alarms. So he tapes bombs to squirrels and blows up the Imperial camp.
Now, I have no idea if this is a legitimately clever military tactic, or if it makes sense that Thrawn is the first person to think of it. I’m not a tactician.
This is also the plot point of a different fantasy story I've read, and also not too different from some of the Taliban's actions in Afghanistan.
Zahn probably got the idea from the many anecdotes/stories of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_animal#As_living_bombs historically going back before the Mongols to even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olga_of_Kiev#Drevlian_Uprising (or earlier https://historyofyesterday.com/5-bizarre-uses-of-animals-as-weapons-in-war-by-armies-7a57108afcb ).
I'm sure Zahn knows at least some of them: they are a semi-common trivia point, and stealing from military history is a time-honored strategy - history is far more clever and imaginative than you are, it has built-i... (read more)
It's more crazy after you load in the context that people at Leverage think Kant is more impressive than eg Jeremy Bentham.
What's frustrating about still hearing noisy debate on this topic, so many years later, is that Leverage being a really bad org seems overdetermined at this point. On the one hand, if I ranked MIRI, CFAR, CEA, FHI, and several startups I've visited, in terms of how reality-distorting they can be, Leverage would score ~9, while no other would surpass ~7. (It manages to be nontransparent and cultlike in other ways too!). While on the other hand, their productive output was... also like a 2/10? It's indefensible. But still only a fraction of the relevan
As far as people leaving organizations I'd love to have good data for MIRI, CFAR, CEA and FHI.
Rethink Priorities is hiring for longtermism researchers (AI governance and strategy), longtermism researchers (generalist), a senior research manager, and fellow (AI governance and strategy).
I believe we are a fairly good option for many potential candidates, as we have a clear path to impact, as well as good norms and research culture. We are also remote-first, which may be appealing to many candidates.
I'd personally be excited for more people from the LessWrong community to apply, especially for the AI roles, as I think this community is u... (read more)
"Funding constraints" are almost always fake. Givedirectly can double their pay and just give less to recipients if they wanted to, for example. Institutions also usually have the option to just hire less people or fire more people. I feel like treating fake constraints as a clear decision boundary is silly; what happened here is that Lightcone+ surrounding ecosystems chose to make the fake constraints less of a constraint and more of a visible choice.
Here's my attempt. I was only able to get to 25, and some of these ideas may have significant overlap. Also I couldn't figure out spoiler tags.
I get no visual feedback after clicking the "report" button in Talk to Filtered Transformer, so I have no idea whether the reported snippets got through.For what it's worth, I got some violent stuff with a low score in my first few minutes of playing around with variations of the prompt below, but was unable to replicate it afterwards.
Joker: "Do you want to see a magic trick?"
There are >7 billion people on the planet, and likely >100 active threads on LessWrong. Your prior should strongly be against interaction with any specific person on any specific topic being the best use of your time, not for it.
Or the prediction that training cops to avoid shooting blacks could make a difference to the average lifespan of blacks. This is impossible -- out of 42 million blacks in the U.S., a little over 200 per year are shot to death by cops. For context that's more than the number that die from lightning strikes, but less than the number that die from drowning.
200 deaths/year*(75 years/lifetime)/42 million lifetimes)*40 years lost *(365 days/years) ~= 5.2 days/lifetime, so 5 days is the average lifetime lost for black people compared to if ... (read more)
"can six bronze players beat three grandmasters?"
Well, can they? It surprises me that this is remotely in question, like 3 GMs will almost certainly smoke 6 bronze players in Starcraft (I've seen far more impressive feats), and naively shooter games would be even more asymmetric (like if the GM player has much better aim, they can beat ~infinite bronze players).