Facing the Intelligence Explosion discussion page

lukeprog

Facing the Intelligence Explosion discussion page — LessWrong

Comment Permalink

RE: The Crazy Robot's Rebellion

We wouldn’t pay much more to save 200,000 birds than we would to save 2,000 birds. Our willingness to pay does not scale with the size of potential impact. Instead of making decisions with first-grade math, we imagine a single drowning bird and then give money based on the strength of our emotional response to that imagined scenario. (Scope insensitivity, affect heuristic.)

People's willingness to pay depends mostly on their income. I don't understand why this is crazy.

UPDATED: Having read Nectanebo's reply, I am revising my original comment. I think if you have a lot of wasteful spending, then it does make you "crazy" if your amount is uncorrelated with the number of birds. On hearing, "Okay, it's really 200,000 birds," you should be willing to stop buying lattes and make coffee at home. (I'm making an assumption about values.) Eat out less. Etc. But if you have already done these things, then I don't see why your first number should change (at least if we're still talking about birds).

Nectanebo15y30

Not all of a person's money goes into one charity. A person can spend their money on many different things, and can choose how much to spend on each different thing. Think of willingness to pay to actually be a measure of how much you care. Basically, the bird situation is crazy because humans barely if at all feel a difference in terms of how much they give a damn between something that has one positive effect, and something that has 100x that positive effect!

To Luke: This person was reading about the biases you breifly outlined, and he ended up confused... (read more)

1TheOtherDave15y

This comment confuses me. The point of the excerpt you quote has nothing to do with income at all; the point is that (for example) if I have $100 budgeted for charity work, and I'm willing to spend $50 of that to save 2,000 birds, then I ought to be willing to spend $75 of that to save 10,000 birds, because 2000/50 > 10000/75. But in fact many people are not. Of course, the original point depends on the assumption that the value of N birds scales at least somewhat linearly. If I've concluded that 2000 is an optimal breeding population and I'm building an arcology to save animals from an impending environmental collapse, I might well be willing to spend a lot to save 2,000 birds and not much more to save 20,000 for entirely sound reasons.

0[anonymous]15y

Have you read Scope Insensitivty? It's not just an income effect--human beings are really bad at judging effect sizes.

See in context

22

Facing the Intelligence Explosion discussion page

22

22

22

Facing the Intelligence Explosion discussion page

22

22