Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

wedrifid comments on SIAI - An Examination - Less Wrong

143 Post author: BrandonReinhart 02 May 2011 07:08AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (203)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: wedrifid 04 May 2011 05:47:20AM *  2 points [-]

Maybe, but if SIAI's goal is just to employ Eliezer for as little money as possible then that's not an important consideration.

It actually is - because both of the bounds I mentioned would come into the bargaining (if that was how the pay was to be determined). What Eliezer could get elsewhere is one consideration - but what SIAI could get as an alternative to Eliezer. It would only be if Eliezer was an utterly incompetent negotiator that SIAI could force Eliezer to accept the minimum of what he would get elsewhere. And we know he is a lot better at game theory than that!

I don't see how hypothetical programming careers come in to any of this.

Merely as a less-bad reference point than a programming career based on current programming skills. It was your point (as adapted from the OP), not mine. I'm merely pointing out why the comparison is unreasonable as stated.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 04 May 2011 07:39:05AM *  4 points [-]

Sure, Eliezer's value to SIAI is also an important component to negotiations.

But the reference point doesn't actually matter for anything, even if quoting reference points is a common dark arts negotiation tactic (tantamount to saying "it's standard" in order to get people to accept something). I'd guess that most of negotiation is dark arts.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 May 2011 08:14:10AM 15 points [-]

It must be weird to be Eliezer Yudkowsky reading this.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 04 May 2011 08:52:20AM 25 points [-]

Yep. The way it actually works is that I'm on the critical path for our organizational mission, and paying me less would require me to do things that take up time and energy in order to get by with a smaller income. Then, assuming all goes well, future intergalactic civilizations would look back and think this was incredibly stupid; in much the same way that letting billions of person-containing brains rot in graves, and humanity allocating less than a million dollars per year to the Singularity Institute, would predictably look pretty stupid in retrospect. At Singularity Institute board meetings we at least try not to do things which will predictably make future intergalactic civilizations think we were being willfully stupid. That's all there is to it, and no more.

Comment author: BenAlbahari 05 May 2011 10:41:04AM 35 points [-]

I have an image of Eliezer queued up in a coffee shop, guiltily eyeing up the assortment of immodestly priced sugary treats. The reptilian parts of his brain have commandeered the more recently evolved parts of his brain into fervently computing the hedonic calculus of an action that other, more foolish types, might misclassify as a sordid instance of discretionary spending. Caught staring into the glaze of a particularly sinful muffin, he now faces a crucial choice. A cognitive bias, thought to have been eradicated from his brain before the SIAI was founded, seizes its moment. "I'll take the triple chocolate muffin thank you" Eliezer blurts out. "Are you sure?" the barista asks. "Well I can't be 100% sure. But the future of intergalactic civilizations may very well depend on it!"

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 05 May 2011 05:08:18PM 16 points [-]

In accordance with the general fact that "calories in - calories out" is complete bullshit, I've had to learn that sweet things are not their caloric content, they are pharmaceutical weight-gain pills with effects far in excess of their stated caloric content. So no, I wouldn't be able to eat a triple chocolate muffin, or chocolate cake, or a donut, etcetera. But yes, when I still believed the bullshit and thought the cost was just the stated caloric content, I sometimes didn't resist.

Comment author: Jordan 06 May 2011 10:43:18PM 12 points [-]

Luckily a juicy porterhouse steak is a nice stand-in for a triple chocolate muffin. Unfortunately they don't tend to sell them at coffee shops.

Perhaps I'll end my career as a mathematician to start a paleo coffee shop.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 06 May 2011 11:05:33PM 8 points [-]

A fast search suggests that there aren't any paleo restaurants, and possibly not even paleo sections on menus, so there might just be a business opportunity.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 07 May 2011 06:19:06AM 10 points [-]

I fully expect that less than 0.1% of mathematicians are working on math anywhere near as important as starting a chain of paleo coffee shops. What are you working on?

Comment author: Jordan 07 May 2011 08:24:00AM 6 points [-]

Fluid dynamics. Considering jumping over to computational neuroscience.

I've put some serious thought into a paleo coffee shop. It's definitely on my list of potential extra-academic endeavors if I end up leaving my ivory tower.

Comment author: Alicorn 07 May 2011 06:28:22AM 1 point [-]

Is coffee in the paleo diet?

Comment author: Jordan 07 May 2011 08:36:27AM 4 points [-]

There isn't really a rigorous definition of the diet. One guideline some people use is that you shouldn't eat anything you wouldn't eat raw, which excludes beans. Coffee beans aren't actually beans though. I wouldn't be surprised if some people consider coffee not paleo, but there are big names in the paleo scene that drink coffee (Kurt Harris, Art de Vany).

Really, I would say paleo is more a philosophy for how to go about honing in on a diet, rather than a particular diet in and of itself. There are hard lines, like chocolate muffins. I don't think coffee is close to that line though.

Comment author: Peterdjones 07 May 2011 03:41:45PM *  1 point [-]
Comment author: [deleted] 07 May 2011 08:10:10PM 1 point [-]

One [paleo diet] guideline some people use is that you shouldn't eat anything you wouldn't eat raw

That surprises me. The paleo diet I know includes meat, which you should cook in order to kill parasites.

Comment author: AdeleneDawner 07 May 2011 03:48:17PM 1 point [-]

Tea might be even if coffee isn't.

Comment author: drethelin 06 May 2011 09:48:34PM 0 points [-]

Is this based on taubes or is there more to support it? I found his demolition of calories in calories out fairly convincing but wasn't wholly convinced by his carb-demonizing

Comment author: Cyan 05 May 2011 05:32:33PM 0 points [-]

In what way do you consider "calories in - calories out" complete bullshit? (My guess as to your answer: knock-on effects w.r.t. a Seth-Roberts-style set point of some kind.)

Comment author: SilasBarta 05 May 2011 06:56:37PM 5 points [-]

Probably in the same sense that people mean, under generous interpretations, when they say "The Laffer Curve is bullshit" -- which is to say, it's technically true, but not a relevant insight for this part of the problem space, given more significant factors in success.

Comment author: Cyan 05 May 2011 07:33:45PM *  1 point [-]

Sure. I'm curious about what EY sees as the specific "more significant factors in [why sweet things are obstacles to] success [in excess of their stated calories]".

Comment author: SilasBarta 05 May 2011 08:33:47PM 1 point [-]

Oh, okay. Probably should have known I couldn't provide what you were looking for, but I wanted to get in a jab at confused critiques of the Laffer Curve and confused applications of conservation of energy to weight loss. :-)

Comment author: rhollerith_dot_com 05 May 2011 04:07:13PM *  3 points [-]

Very skillful exploitation of the humor potential of this thread of conversation! Bravo!

Comment author: wedrifid 04 May 2011 09:21:43AM *  6 points [-]

Thankyou. That appears to be an entirely reasonable explanation. (Where 'explanation' is not to signal 'needed to be justified' but rather 'interesting to know'.)

Comment author: wedrifid 04 May 2011 08:02:59AM 3 points [-]

If citing BATNAs in negotiations is 'dark arts' then the phrase is even more useless than I thought.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 04 May 2011 08:17:17AM *  1 point [-]

So in the language of BATNA, my point was that if a high powered software development career was not Eliezer's BATNA, citing it in a negotiation would be a dark arts move, just like putting a sign in a grocery store next to a display of tomato cans that said "limit 12 per customer" would be a dark arts move (exploiting anchoring and adjustment).

My current model for negotiations is that the only two numbers that really matter are the maximum price the buyer will pay and the minimum price the seller will sell at. Figuring out what number actually gets chosen (which will be somewhere in between those two) is where the dark art of negotiating comes in. You could cite your BATNA as evidence that indicates your walkaway point was some high or low value, in an attempt to reveal information about your preferences, but if you cited a BATNA that you didn't actually have that'd be a dark arts tactic.

I'd define dark arts as "attempting to influence the actions of others in ways other than helping them arrive at more correct beliefs or resolve inconsistent preferences". I'm not entirely certain about the "resolve inconsistent preferences" bit though--this is kind of a weird zone, in my thinking--what part of me decides how to resolve inconsistencies in my preferences? Is it my preferences themselves?

I hate to be this deep in this discussion because I don't mean to dis Eliezer, but I'd love to improve my thinking about negotiations if it's wrong.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 May 2011 08:09:57AM *  1 point [-]

I'd never heard that phrase before. Thanks for introducing it to me.

EDIT: To be clearer, I mean BATNA, not "dark arts."