[Link] Tech behemoths form artificial-intelligence nonprofit

1 Gleb_Tsipursky 29 September 2016 04:29AM
Comment author: MrMind 26 September 2016 09:21:37AM *  -1 points [-]

It's amazing how the "noncentral fallacy" is rooted deeply into human psychology.
Using "weird" to escape the gravitational pull of a word it's interesting, and suggests a general strategy: Martin Luther King was an heroic criminal, abortion is an ethic murder, etc.
Mmh, better but not the best.

'Weird' seems to work well only for self-identification, though.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 26 September 2016 07:11:36PM -1 points [-]

I like those other examples for labeling others, though - might be a nice general strategy to employ.

Comment author: ChristianKl 20 September 2016 09:18:22AM 0 points [-]

I can find plenty of people who report that chakra healing worked for them. There are self-reports for a lot of things working for people. That doesn't mean those things are necessarily good.

In this case it likely works for you in the sense that it produces a disassociation. Disassociating emotions is however generally not a optimal strategy for dealing with emotions. Mainstream psychology is generally against it.

There advantages of becoming a psychopath, but doing disassociative techniques that move in that direction is still not something I would recommend.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 20 September 2016 12:46:22PM -2 points [-]

I agree that it does produce disassociation, but I don't think, for me, it's about disassociating from emotions. It's a disassociation from an identity label. It helps keep my identity small in way that speaks to my System 1 well.

Comment author: ChristianKl 19 September 2016 08:59:29PM -2 points [-]

I don't think the term "weird" is very conductive to having a healthy self-esteem.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 20 September 2016 01:59:22AM -2 points [-]

Weird works for me, and I actually associate positive value with weirdness. But of course your mileage may vary. Any term that works to indicate distance from an identity label viscerally to one's System 1 will do, as Gram_Stone pointed out.

A Weird Trick To Manage Your Identity

2 Gleb_Tsipursky 19 September 2016 07:13PM

I’ve always been uncomfortable being labeled “American.” Though I’m a citizen of the United States, the term feels restrictive and confining. It obliges me to identify with aspects of the United States with which I am not thrilled. I have similar feelings of limitation with respect to other labels I assume. Some of these labels don’t feel completely true to who I truly am, or impose certain perspectives on me that diverge from my own.

 

These concerns are why it's useful to keep one's identity small, use identity carefully, and be strategic in choosing your identity.

 

Yet these pieces speak more to System 1 than to System 2. I recently came up with a weird trick that has made me more comfortable identifying with groups or movements that resonate with me while creating a System 1 visceral identity management strategy. The trick is to simply put the word “weird” before any identity category I think about.

 

I’m not an “American,” but a “weird American.” Once I started thinking about myself as a “weird American,” I was able to think calmly through which aspects of being American I identified with and which I did not, setting the latter aside from my identity. For example, I used the term “weird American” to describe myself when meeting a group of foreigners, and we had great conversations about what I meant and why I used the term. This subtle change enables my desire to identify with the label “American,” but allows me to separate myself from any aspects of the label I don’t support.

 

Beyond nationality, I’ve started using the term  “weird” in front of other identity categories. For example, I'm a professor at Ohio State. I used to become deeply  frustrated when students didn’t prepare adequately  for their classes with me. No matter how hard I tried, or whatever clever tactics I deployed, some students simply didn’t care. Instead of allowing that situation to keep bothering me, I started to think of myself as a “weird professor” - one who set up an environment that helped students succeed, but didn’t feel upset and frustrated by those who failed to make the most of it.

 

I’ve been applying the weird trick in my personal life, too. Thinking of myself as a “weird son” makes me feel more at ease when my mother and I don’t see eye-to-eye; thinking of myself as a “weird nice guy,” rather than just a nice guy, has helped me feel confident about my decisions to be firm when the occasion calls for it.

 

So, why does this weird trick work? It’s rooted in strategies of reframing and distancing, two research-based methods for changing our thought frameworks. Reframing involves changing one’s framework of thinking about a topic in order to create more beneficial modes of thinking. For instance, in reframing myself as a weird nice guy, I have been able to say “no” to requests people make of me, even though my intuitive nice guy tendency tells me I should say “yes.” Distancing refers to a method of emotional management through separating oneself from an emotionally tense situation and observing it from a third-person, external perspective. Thus, if I think of myself as a weird son, I don’t have nearly as much negative emotions during conflicts with my mom. It enables me to have space for calm and sound decision-making.

 

Thinking of myself as "weird" also applies to the context of rationality and effective altruism for me. Thinking of myself as a "weird" aspiring rationalist and EA helps me be more calm and at ease when I encounter criticisms of my approach to promoting rational thinking and effective giving. I can distance myself from the criticism better, and see what I can learn from the useful points in the criticism to update and be stronger going forward.

 

Overall, using the term “weird” before any identity category has freed me from confinements and restrictions associated with socially-imposed identity labels and allowed me to pick and choose which aspects of these labels best serve my own interests and needs. I hope being “weird” can help you manage your identity better as well!

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 20 August 2016 04:16:34PM *  0 points [-]

Applying probabilistic thinking to fears about terrorism in this piece for the 16th largest newspaper in the US, reaching over 320K with its printed version and over 5 million hits on its website per month. The title was chosen by the newspaper, and somewhat occludes the points. The article is written from a liberal perspective to play into the newspaper's general bent, and its main point was to convey the benefits of applying probabilistic thinking to evaluating political reality.

Edit Updated somewhat based on conversation with James Miller here

Comment author: turchin 15 August 2016 08:03:04PM -1 points [-]

I have been asked about something like a carrier advise in field of x-risks prevention deep in EA forum so I will repost my answer here and would like to get any comments or more suggestions to the list

Q: "... it seems like it would be helpful to accompany some maps with a scheme for prioritizing the important areas. e.g. if people could know that safe ai engineering is a useful area for reducing gcrs.." http://effective-altruism.com/ea/10h/the_map_of_global_warming_prevention/#comments

A: So, some ideas for further research, that is fields which a person could undertake if he want to make an impact in the field of x-risks. So it is carrier advises. For many of them I don't have special background or needed personal qualities.

1.Legal research of international law, including work with UN and governments. Goal: prepare an international law and a panel for x-risks prevention. (Legal education is needed)

2.Convert all information about x-risks (including my maps) in large wikipedia style database. Some master of communication to attract many contributors and balance their actions is needed.

3.Create computer model of all global risks, which will be able to calculate their probabilities depending of different assumptions. Evolve this model into world model with elements of AI and connect it to monitoring and control systems.

4.Large research is safety of bio-risks, which will attract professional biologists.

5.Promoter, who could attract funding for different research without oversimplification of risks and overhyping solutions. He may be also a political activist.

  1. I think that in AI safety we are already have many people, so some work to integrate their results is needed.

  2. Teacher. A professor who will be able to teach a course in x-risks research for student and prepare many new researchers. May be youtube lectures.

  3. Artist, who will be able to attract attention to the topic without sensationalism and bad memes.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 18 August 2016 08:26:43PM *  0 points [-]

Applying probabilistic thinking to fears about terrorism in this piece for the 16th largest newspaper in the US, reaching over 320K with its printed version and over 5 million hits on its website per month. The title was chosen by the newspaper, and somewhat occludes the points. The article is written from a liberal perspective to play into the newspaper's general bent, and its main point was to convey the benefits of applying probabilistic thinking to evaluating political reality.

Edit] Updated somewhat based on conversation with James Miller [here

Comment author: James_Miller 16 August 2016 02:38:30PM 2 points [-]

I tried. I guess it wasn't accepted.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 16 August 2016 04:52:12PM 2 points [-]

:-(

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 16 August 2016 07:01:44AM 2 points [-]

Consider reposting this on the EA Forum, might get more hits that way.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 31 July 2016 07:26:29AM 0 points [-]

What is the Speed Giving Game?

The text in you photograph is too small to read easily, or perhaps at all.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 31 July 2016 04:57:22PM 0 points [-]

Speed Giving Games involve having people make a decision between two charities. In SGGs, participants who come to the table are given a 1-minute introduction to the concept of effective giving and the two charities involved in the SGG, and are then invited to make a decision about which of the two charities to support. Their vote results in a dollar each going to either charity, sponsored by an outside party, usually The Life You Can Save. For the SGG, we chose GiveDirectly as the effective charity, and the Mid-Ohio Food Bank as a local and not so effective charity.

Will keep in mind about the photo, thanks for the feedback.

View more: Next