gjm comments on Some reservations about Singer's child-in-the-pond argument - Less Wrong

21 Post author: JonahSinick 19 June 2013 11:54PM

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

Comments (120)

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

Comment author: gjm 20 June 2013 07:37:58PM 8 points [-]

Look where it fictionally gets Superman.

It (in that fiction) gets him enabling the transition from our present (frankly rather rubbish) world to a glorious future of peace and plenty for all. Not so bad, if you find fictional evidence compelling.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 20 June 2013 07:56:09PM *  2 points [-]

Not so bad, if you find fictional evidence compelling.

How Superman is treated in that strip is how we treat our machines. We run an electricity generator for years, stopping it only for the minimal time necessary for maintenance, and when it is worn out or obsolete, take it apart for scrap. Of course it is fine to treat a (non-sentient) machine like that. That is what we make the machines for. But if reasoning leads to the conclusion that we should treat ourselves like that, then I conclude that the reasoning is broken, even if I don't know where it went wrong.

Comment author: gjm 20 June 2013 11:16:11PM 6 points [-]

You may well be right about the real world. But in the fictional world of that SMBC comic, it seems to me that (miserable Superman + billions of people living in peace and prosperity) is plausibly an outcome that even Superman might prefer to (happy Superman + billions of people suffering war, poverty, disease, etc.).

In other words, I don't think your fictional example is good support for your thesis. Which is too bad, because (like much else at SMBC) it's a funny and thought-provoking comic.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 21 June 2013 08:25:43AM -2 points [-]

But in the fictional world of that SMBC comic, it seems to me that (miserable Superman + billions of people living in peace and prosperity) is plausibly an outcome that even Superman might prefer to (happy Superman + billions of people suffering war, poverty, disease, etc.).

Happy Superman + billions of people living in peace and prosperity is better than both. Some hypotheticals should be fought.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 23 June 2013 12:33:35PM 5 points [-]

In the hypothetical world, Superman brings the whole planet to properity and then... he has a problem to find a job, and then he ends up working at the museum.

Why exactly is the person who saved the whole planet required to work? Did the humanity meanwhile evolve beyond the use of "thank you"? How about just asking some volunteers to donate 0.1% of their monthly income to Superman? If just one person in a few thousands agrees, Superman can retire happily.

The problem with the comix story is not just the extreme altruism, but that humanity appears unable to cooperate on Prisonners' Dilemma with the Superman. (I am not saying that's necessarily an incorrect description of the humanity. Just a sad one.)

Comment author: gjm 21 June 2013 11:59:52AM 5 points [-]

I agree that some hypotheticals should be fought. But it seems to me that you're objecting to the basic premise of the strip and also trying to use it as fictional evidence.

In the fictional world depicted there, how do you get to happy Superman + happy billions?

In our actual world, how do you get to (if I'm understanding correctly the analogy you want to draw) comfortable first-worlders not needing to sacrifice anything + less malaria, starvation, etc., in the poorer parts of the world?

(From the other things you've said in this thread it seems like you're actually happy to get to comfortable first-worlders not needing to sacrifice anything + starvation and misery in the developing world. Fair enough; your values are what they are and I'm not going to try to change them. But then what does the hypothetical outcome (happy Superman + happy billions) have to do with anything?)

Comment author: RichardKennaway 21 June 2013 12:59:43PM *  0 points [-]

But it seems to me that you're objecting to the basic premise of the strip and also trying to use it as fictional evidence.

I am not using the strip as evidence of anything. The strip is just an illustration of a certain imaginary situation, and implicitly poses the question, is it a good one, or a bad one? An answer to which must consider what alternatives are on offer. The strip itself presents Superman's original behaviour, and his revised mission. But while reality has limits, hard choices, and problems without attainable solutions, fiction does not.

If Superman can fight crime retail, and then fight poverty wholesale, why should he not instead create the means of fighting poverty wholesale? Well, in canon, because he is not known for his brains. All he can really do is hit things very hard. No matter, after the "This began to wear on the hero" frame, introduce some genius superhero to point this out to Superman. The genius can do the inventing while Superman helps with the grunt work of building it, and humanity gets muon fusion engines decades earlier. My first fanfic.

In the fictional world depicted there, how do you get to happy Superman + happy billions?

In the same way as the author: by imagining it. The question is, why do you choose to imagine only the two scenarios in the strip, and reject the legitimacy of imagining the third?

From the other things you've said in this thread it seems like you're actually happy to get to comfortable first-worlders not needing to sacrifice anything + starvation and misery in the developing world.

Not happy, but I'm not willing to level the peaks of civilisation to fill in the troughs.

But then what does the hypothetical outcome (happy Superman + happy billions) have to do with anything?

It's a result I think we would prefer to either of the others. In the real world, the question is how to get there. Distributing anti-malarial nets is all very well, but as SaidAchmiz has been saying, there needs to also be a larger strategy.

Comment author: gjm 21 June 2013 01:51:56PM 5 points [-]

I am not using the strip as evidence of anything.

Then at least one of us is confused.

If you're just pointing to the strip as an illustration of something bad, then I disagree about its badness (even from hypothetical-Superman's vantage point): the strip shows Superman putting up with something pretty bad, but achieving something good for it, and I think even hypothetical-Superman would agree that the overall outcome is a good one.

Once you start arguing about what alternatives there might have been within the fiction, and saying "while reality has limits ... fiction does not", well, it seems like you're saying "It's bad to ask the fortunate few to sacrifice their interests for the sake of the miserable many, and we can see that because in my reimagining of the fictional world of this comic Superman does this but -- so I decree -- doesn't need to", and I don't see what you're gaining by appealing to the comic.

why do you [...] reject the legitimacy of imagining the third?

You're welcome to imagine anything you like. I just don't see the point of saying "So-and-so is bad; see, here's an imaginary situation a bit like so-and-so, in which I've decided what's possible and what isn't, and it turns out to be a bad situation".

there needs to also be a larger strategy.

Well, supposedly AMF thinks the nets are part of a larger strategy, and IIRC the Gates Foundation is trying to wipe out malaria. But, in any case, I don't see how to get from "there should be a larger strategy" to "it's OK for me not to do anything concrete". Of course it might be OK for you not to do anything concrete, but what I don't see is why the fact that there ought to be a larger strategy is any support for not doing anything concrete.

Comment author: [deleted] 21 June 2013 10:56:40PM 3 points [-]

In the same way as the author: by imagining it. The question is, why do you choose to imagine only the two scenarios in the strip, and reject the legitimacy of imagining the third?

If I can imagine being at a switch deciding whether a train will kill five people or one, I can also imagine everyone getting off the train and the train derailing where it doesn't kill anybody. But that would defeat the whole point of imagining the train in the first place.

Comment author: CCC 21 June 2013 01:37:58PM 2 points [-]

Well, in canon, because he is not known for his brains.

In the original comics, Superman invented things that were far ahead of even modern technology; including a series of robot duplicates that were visually indistinguishable from himself (not as powerful, of course, but he occasionally dressed one of them up as Clark Kent in order to maintain his disguise). In fact, super-intelligence was supposed to be one of his powers.

Exactly why he never produced a range of android butlers, or otherwise advanced technology, is a mystery to me. The only possible reason that I can think of is that the authors wanted to keep the world's visible technology levels more-or-less familiar to their readers.

Comment author: wedrifid 22 June 2013 01:37:57AM 2 points [-]

In fact, super-intelligence was supposed to be one of his powers.

He is certainly always able to think at the same speed he can do everything else. eg. Clark can write a Daily Prophet article in seconds, leaving the keyboard smoking. Even with only an IQ of, say 130 he should be comfortably ahead of any mere human for the purpose of achieving any particular intellectual task. Spending 10,000 subjective hours on something does wonders for achieving expert performance.

Comment author: Estarlio 22 June 2013 05:34:23PM 1 point [-]

IIRC the ten thousand hours thing was ten thousand hours of tutored practice at a level appropriate to the learner. I can see Clark running into the limitations of other people's performance rather than his own as a bottleneck.

Comment author: wedrifid 22 June 2013 06:01:45PM 2 points [-]

IIRC the ten thousand hours thing was ten thousand hours of tutored practice at a level appropriate to the learner

The important factor is that it is deliberate practice. Tutors are useful but not as necessary during the practice (this obviously varies depending on the degree and kind of feedback required).

I can see Clark running into the limitations of other people's performance rather than his own as a bottleneck.

In particular where the information is not yet contained in all the textbooks and internet resources currently in existence his learning will be much slower. He'll have to invent the science (or engineering) himself as he goes.

Comment author: CCC 22 June 2013 07:05:10AM 1 point [-]

Daily Planet. Not perhaps the best name for a newspaper, as it appears to hint at Clark's otherworldly origins...

Anyhow, there is a limit to the speed at which even Superman can type; that limit being the keyboard. Your average keyboard is more than fast enough to keep up with a human typist, but not infinitely fast...

Assuming that the limit is in the PS/2 protocol (and not in the keyboard hardware - Clark may have quietly replaced the keyboard on his desktop with a high-speed variant that he'd built himself, but it still needs to talk to the computer using a known protocol); assuming that the keyboard's clock signal runs at 16.7kHz (at the top end of what the protocol allows) and continually outputs keypresses at 33 bits per key (11 bits per scancode; each key transmits one scancode when pressed, and two scancodes when released), Clark can type at a maximum of 506 characters per second; assuming an average of five characters plus a space per word, that works out to 84 words per second at most. A thousand-word article would therefore take close to 12 seconds to type up. Note that this is before dealing with punctuation or capital letters (the shift key also sends keycodes); moreover, double letters (like the cc in 'accept') will slow things down further; it'll take some slight time for the keyboard to register that the key is no longer being pressed, and Clark has to wait that long before hitting it again. (That actually suggests a test for a superpowered reporter; keep an eye open for a reporter whose articles avoid double letters).

Clark could certainly work faster than that if he were, say, engraving on a stone tablet, or using pencil and paper (I'm not sure about pens, the ink needs a little time to flow to the nib). Pencil and paper would be limited by how fast the pencil can move across the paper without igniting the paper...

Comment author: wedrifid 22 June 2013 04:48:51PM 3 points [-]

Assuming that the limit is in the PS/2 protocol (and not in the keyboard hardware - Clark may have quietly replaced the keyboard on his desktop with a high-speed variant that he'd built himself, but it still needs to talk to the computer using a known protocol);

My recently primed munchkin instinct can't help but notice that the analysis given doesn't remotely approach the limits specified here. Specifically, it tacitly assumes that Clark uses only the stock standard software that everyone else uses. In fact, it even assumes that Clark doesn't use even the most rudimentary macro or autocomplete features built in to standard wordpressors!

Assuming that at some point in his life Clark spent several minutes coding (at the limits you calculate) in anticipation of at some point in the future wishing to type fast all subsequent text input via the PS/2 protocol could occur a couple of orders of magnitude faster. Optimisations would include:

  • Abandon the preconception that pressing the key with the "A" painted on it puts the letter 'a' in the text, or any of the other keys for that matter---especially the ones that aren't so common! Every key press is log2(number of keys) bits of information. Use all of it.
  • A key_press uses 33 bits of bandwidth total but key_press isn't a discrete operation. 11 bits are used for key_down and 22 for key_up but these don't need to follow each other directly (for example see conventional usage of shift, control and alt). As far as the PS/2 protocol is concerned key_up supplies another log2(number of keys) bits of information (for the cost of 22 bits of bandwidth).
    • Given that Clark constructed his own hardware he could easily make use of the full 2*log2(number of keys) bits of information per 33 bits of information by making his keyboard send only a key_down on the first keypress and a key_up on the second keypress (alternating).
    • If Clark is using a standard keyboard then he can still send more information via key_up but is now limited by fingers. Since he has only 10 fingers, before every keydown (after the first 10) he can send one or more key_ups. Which finger(s) he choses to lift up is influenced by the proximity of the keys to each other. Optimal use of this additional information would use a custom weighted "twister protocol" that extracts every bit of information available in the choice "left index finger T" instead of "right pointer T" when both were bio-mechanically plausible options. For this reason, if Clark is using a standard keyboard I recommend he use the smallest layout possible. A laptop's keys being cramped is a feature!
  • Human languages (like English) are grossly inefficient in terms of symbol use. Shannon (of shannon entropy fame) measured the entropy of English text at between 1 and 1.5 bits per letter even when using mere human subjects guessing what the next letter would be. Some letters are used way too much, simple combinations of letters like "atbyl" have no meaning, some words combinations are more likely than others andIcanreadthiswithoutdifficulty. If bandwidth rather than processing power is the limit compression is called for. I estimate that Clark's Text Over PS/2 Protocol ought to be at least as efficient as Shannon's "subjects can guess what is coming next" findings for typical text while remaining lossless (albeit less efficient) even under unusual input.
  • Since Clark wants to maintain a secret identity his keyboard must be required to operate normally except when he is typing fast. This is easy enough to accomplish via any one of:
    • An unmarked button that requires superhuman strength to press.
    • A keyboard combination (F12 D u _ @ F3 W * & etc) that will not occur randomly but still takes negligible time to enter.
    • The software just starts interpreting the input differently once a sufficient number of keys have been input in rapid succession. (This seems preferable.)
Comment author: wedrifid 22 June 2013 02:00:51PM 1 point [-]

Anyhow, there is a limit to the speed at which even Superman can type; that limit being the keyboard. Your average keyboard is more than fast enough to keep up with a human typist, but not infinitely fast...

Samantha Carter used an entire computer lab when she was supercharged. Her limit was the key buffer if I recall. Depending on how computers have evolved the limiting factor could be the mechanics these days. If so, then it may be efficient to use several keyboards simultaneously.

Clark could certainly work faster than that if he were, say, engraving on a stone tablet

Especially if he uses his (laser) eyes. Depending on his power level he could possibly write faster than the speed of light. If my past research is correct superman is the most powerful when inside a sun (a blue star is best but ours would be fine). So he could perhaps write the most quickly by positioning himself at the surface and the sun and engraving on the surface of say, Mars, or perhaps a moon of Jupiter. The limit of is output then be either the precision of his eyesight, how fast he can control the muscles that move said eyes or, if those capabilities are sufficiently excessive, how fast he can think.

Comment author: [deleted] 22 June 2013 11:33:49AM 0 points [-]

I dunno, how fast can a chisel carve stone before getting blunt, shattering the tablet, or something?