Hmm I don't think so? If you buy land for $X, that's the floor on what you could reasonably assess it at, which is basically the status quo world. So we're in the status quo until someone comes along and bids up the price to their willingness-to-pay: Then, the asset either moves to someone who values it more, or you start paying higher taxes on it. I think either branch is preferable to the status quo?

Yup this makes more sense imo, basically having a right of refusal on the sale, but reflecting the now-assessed-higher tax rate

“should you be trying to dispose of all of your money before the singularity makes it worthless”

This is pretty different than my model of what would happen? Though I admittedly haven’t spent a ton of time thinking through it. I just don’t see why money would lose value though; I expect that some goods would still remain scarce, positional, etc (land in high-demand cities being a strong example), which would seem to cut against that happening?

Maybe I’ve been misusing it or seeing it misused, but I thought it meant something more like “called a thing ahead of time” or “made a good prediction” and therefore treated as more credible in the future?

Presumably you'd still feel productivity effects from not having a monitor, having worse ergonomics, etc?

I was surprised to see you say above that you'd anticipate flying way more often! Are there times you've wanted to fly recently but held off because you couldn't spare the lost hours of flying? (I would have expected the bigger barrier to be the loss of productive hours from, say, being out-of-the-office in the destination itself)

I've been wondering about this in terms of my own writing, whether I should be working on multiple pieces at once to a greater degree than I am. Thinking aloud a bit:

I guess part of the question is, what are the efficiency effects of batch-processing, vs the more diluted feedback signal from multiple 'coming off the production line' at once? Though in my case, I'd probably still stagger the publication, and so maybe that's less of a concern (though there may still be some dilution from having shallower focus on each piece-in-process).

Thanks for sharing this - jfyi I interpretted the title differently than I think you meant it? More like you were saying "You should do multiple of a thing at once, but not too many."

Whereas I now think you mean something more like "It's best if you can do one of a thing at a time," which doesn't code to me as a small batch (because one-at-a-time seems non-batchy). With constraints, of course, that sometimes a pure one-at-a-time isn't doable.

FWIW I’m pretty doubtful of this point about it being weird / or even anyone noticing or caring?

Like, for someone not going into politics, what’s the world in which their $3500 donations to a few AI safety-centric candidates ends up causing fallout? It seems pretty unlikely to me, but maybe I’ve misunderstood the concern

FWIW I’d probably be down to talk with Boaz about it, if I still worked at OpenAI and were hesitant about signing.

I doubt Boaz would be able to provide assurances against facing retaliation from others though, which is probably the crux for signing.

(To be fair, that is a quite high bar.)

Ah dang, yeah I haven’t gotten there yet, will keep an ear out