= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on On accepting an argument if you have limited computational power. - 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 (85)
I think the biggest problem with killing someone is that you're likely to get arrested, which prevents you from saving hundreds of lives.
In general, the best way to get something done is to pay someone who's better at it than you. As such, you can fairly accurately simplify it into thinking about how to earn money, and thinking about where to donate that money. These are generally things you can think about once, rather than think about on a case-by-case basis.
I'm not sure this generalizes well - would this work if everybody was doing it? (It might).
Without specialization of labor, the world simply would not support this many people. Billions would die.
It generalizes well. In fact, the more people do it, the better it works.
But I wonder whether thinking "How can I earn money?" gets specialization of labor as well / better than thinking "What's interesting to me?"
It might result in people trying and failing to do things that pay a lot, rather than try and succeed at things they're well-suited for.
If you know that will be a problem, I think you're smart enough to figure out that you have to do something you're interested in. If not, you're not going to come up with this as a guideline in the first place.