= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Upvoted for clarity, but fantastically wrong, IMHO. In particular, "I suspect that taking straight averages gives too much weight to the opinions of cranks and crackpots, so that you may want to remove some outliers or give less weight to them. " seems to me to be unmotivated by epistemology and visibly motivated by conformity.
In response to
The Centre for Applied Rationality: a year later from a (somewhat) outside perspective
MetaMed is hopefully moving us towards a world with more rationality in the healthcare professions.
I'll also highight another point implicit in my post: even if one assumes that there's not enough funding in the nonprofit world for the projects of highest value, there may be such funding available in other contexts (for-profit, academic and government). This makes the argument for earning to give weaker.
I recognize that I haven't addressed the specific subject of Friendly AI research, and will do so in future posts.
I tend to think that if one can make a for-profit entity, that's the best sort of vehicle to pursue most tasks, though occasionally, churches or governments have some value too.
In response to
Earning to Give vs. Altruistic Career Choice Revisited
The top considerations that come into play when I advise someone whether to earn-to-give or work directly on x-risk look like this:
1) Does this person have a large comparative advantage at the direct problem domain? Top-rank math talent can probably do better at MIRI than at a hedge fund, since there are many mathematical talents competing to go into hedge funds and no guarantee of a good job, and the talent we need for inventing new basic math does not translate directly into writing the best QT machine learning programs the fastest.
2) Is this person going to be able to stay motivated if they go off on their own to earn-to-give, without staying plugged into the community? Alternatively, if the person's possible advantage is at a task that requires a lot of self-direction, will they be able to stay on track without requiring constant labor to keep them on track, since that kind of independent job is much harder to stick at then a 9-to-5 office job with supervision and feedback and cash bonuses?
Every full-time employee at a nonprofit requires at least 10 unusually generous donors or 1 exceptionally generous donor to pay their salary. For any particular person wondering how they should help this implies a strong prior bias toward earning-to-give. There are others competing to have the best advantage for the nonprofit's exact task, and also there are thousands of job opportunities out there that are competing to be the maximally-earning use of your exact talents - best-fits to direct-task-labor vs. earning-to-give should logically be rare, and they are.
The next-largest issue is motivation, and here again there are two sides to the story. The law student who goes in wanting to be an environmentalist (sigh) and comes out of law school accepting the internship with the highest-paying firm is a common anecdote, though now that I come to write it down, I don't particularly know of any gathered data. Earning to give can impose improbability in the form of likelihood that the person will actually give. Conversely, a lot of the most important work at the most efficient altruistic organizations is work that requires self-direction, which is also demanding of motivation.
I should pause here to remark that if you constrain yourself to 'straightforward' altruistic efforts in which the work done is clearly understandable and repeatable and everyone agrees on how wonderful it is, you will of course be constraining yourself very far away from the most efficient altruism - just like a grant committee that only wants to fund scientific research with a 100% chance of paying off in publications and prestige, or a VC that only wanted to fund companies that were certain to be defensible-appearing decisions, or someone who constrained their investments to assets that had almost no risk of going down. You will end up doing things that are nearly certain never to appear to future historians as a decisive factor in the history of Earth-originating intelligent life; this requires tolerance for not just risk but scary ambiguity. But if you want to work on things that might actually be decisive, you will end up in mostly uncharted territory doing highly self-directed work, and many people cannot do this. Just as many other people cannot sustain altruism without being surrounded by other altruists, but this can possibly be purchased elsewhere via living on the West or East Coast and hanging around with others who are earning-to-give or working directly.
These are the top considerations when someone asks me whether they should work directly or earn to support others working directly - the low prior, whether the exact fit of talent is great enough to overcome that prior, and whether the person can sustain motivation / self-direct.
My main comment on this is that if self-direction is as important as it appears to be, it would seem to me that 'become self directed' really should be everyone's first priority if they can think of any way to do that. My second comment is that it seems to me that if one is self-directed and seeks appropriate mentorship, the expected value of pursuing a conventional career is very low compared to that of pursuing an entrepreneurial career. Conversely, mentorship or advice that doesn't account for the critical factor of how self-directed someone is, as well as a few other critical factors such at the disposition to explore options, respond to empirical feedback from the market, etc, is likely to be worse than useless.
I had NO IDEA how much discrimination I suffered for wearing glasses until I gave them up.
I'm intrigued. What was the nature of the discrimination? How did you know glasses/not-glasses was the cause? Any specific examples?
The most basic is that as far as I can tell, I had never been hit on while wearing glasses, and that started happening regularly.
Why do you say that? The low-hanging fruit of good ideas tends to get plucked, even the long shots - the primary exceptions are things that people refuse to do because they're wrong.
You can assume that, but I assure you it's just not the case. We can debate the details some time in person if you'd like.
Would that happen automatically, or would the procedure set me at 20/20 unless the person doing it takes special action?
There are additional 'add-ons' with names like 'clear view'. The tech changes continually, so do some research before buying it.
In response to
Post ridiculous munchkin ideas!
All of the munchkin ideas I can think of aren't so much unlikely to work as hideously unethical. That fits with the classic munchkin, but it takes them off the table as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather not signal willingness to entertain immoral ideas, since there's no disclaimer I could issue that would adequately signal the truth of my being against them.
Then something is wrong with the generator that your brain uses when trying to be unconventional. Try to figure out what and how to fix it, and tell me if you figure it out, as I have no idea how to do that.
- Obtaining a remoteable job is much like obtaining a job with any other specific benefit: the market is going to arrange things so that jobs with the benefit pay less in other ways, on the average, than jobs without it. And given the paucity of remoteable jobs, you've drastically cut down your options.
- Living in a faraway country means that you are far away from relatives whom you might want to visit.
- Living in a faraway country means either learning the local language or being at a serious disadvantage.
- Living in a faraway country means living in another culture. Very basic things that we take for granted in our country might not exist in others. Do you even know the correct way to bribe public officials? What's your social life going to be like when few people watch the same TV shows or read the same books as you? Are you sure you like the other culture's food, and want to follow their holidays instead of your own? Is the other country going to be more tolerant of weirdos, and are you going to be perceived as even more of a weirdo than you might be in the US? If you have kids, what's the school system like? Are people with your religion going to be as accepted as in the US? Do people in the other country resent (or even just look down on while being glad to take the money of) foreigners?
- If a job is available for you in the foreign country, it's equally available to local residents. If you could program by long distance, the company you work for could just hire a programmer from the country instead, and he wouldn't demand American salaries.
- If you do lose your job, how are you going to find another one? Fly to America for the interview, while unemployed?
- Did you actually consult with a tax lawyer? (The US still taxes expatriates.)
legitimate concerns, but way WAY weaker than the strength of the argument they are set against.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
This is MUCH better than I expected from the title. I strongly agree with essentially the entire post, and many of my qualms about EA are the result of my bringing these points up with, e.g. Nick Beckstead and not seeing them addressed or even acknowledged.