= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Michaelos comments on The curse of identity - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (296)
I've been somewhat helped by simply realizing the problem. For example, recently I was struggling with wanting to study a lot of math and mathy AI, because that's the field that my brain has labeled the most prestigious (mostly as a result of reading Eliezer et al.). When I realized that I had been aiming at something that I felt was prestigious, not something that was actually my comparative advantage, it felt like a burden was lifted from my shoulders. I realized that I could actually take easier courses, and thereby manage to finish my Master's degree.
My understanding is the quote: "It's better to be a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a big pond." is substantially related to status.
If I try to apply it to your situation to find isomorphisms, I find a lot:
Rather than being a small fish(struggling with math) in a big pond(Eliezer et al.), you want to be the big fish(actually my comparative advantage) in the small pond(take easier courses.)
Considering this, are you sure you've left the status framework? If so, why?
(Edited after comment from TheOtherDave for brevity.)
Comparative advantage is eating the sort of food that most greatly increases your fish size in the pond whose size implies the greatest marginal payoff for adding fish of the size you can become if you enter that pond.
When I combine what you said with:
I think I may have dissolved my confusion. You could separate it out into two pieces:
1: Comparative advantage - An Optimization Process
2: Things that will actually be useful. - Being Friendly
My confused feeling seems like it might have been from setting these things as if they were opposed and you could only maximize one.
But if you figure the two are multiplied together, it makes much more sense to attempt to balance both correctly, to maximize the result.
Utility functions aren't quite as simple as multiplying two numbers, but the basic idea of maximizing the product of comparative advantage and usefulness sounds a lot more reasonable in my head then maximizing one or the other.
Thanks!