Yes, I have tried :) But I still value expert human intuition.

I think at least 50% of the doctors will go away in the future, as they are just trained to give the usual stuff, and if they disappear tomorrow an LLM would still give similar results (actually, even a monkey with just two basic medicines would be a good enough doctor).

Not a proper quick take and perhaps off-topic on this forum. But given that I know some people here are into health I give it a shot.

I would be very grateful if someone could point me to some excellent doctors around Europe, website, or some sort of diet that can be good to improve my health.

I have been having some health issues:

• getting sick frequently, feeling feverish most of the time
• Difficulty breathing, with some pain sometime when I am also sick
  • It turns out I have recently developed asthma too. Initially a couple of doctors thought it was anxiety, and after a year and a half I really pushed to get a proper test.
• A burning sensation on my left chest, since I took the covid vaccine, that gets worse when I get sick
• Slight hypertension
• And most importantly a continuous head confusion (similar to when I used to get a fever) since two years ago! Sometimes it has head tingling, with hands and feet tingling too, and sometimes a headache.
• I am fit, and try to workout when I can.^[1]

All the doctors that I have met do not have a single clue, and do not seem interested into solving the problem or investigate.^[2] I am not even looking for a cure now. Just a diagnosis.

I am not rich so my budget is limited.  But life has become so difficult. 

1. ^{^}

   With my breathing problems I can do a 10km at around 4:40 km/min, but suddenly not on my top of my game (4:10 km/min).

2. ^{^}

   If it is not an easy ibuprofen or similar, they quickly give up. I have a big suspicion that doctors are not trained well, so they might be all effectively incompetent at dealing with situations that are not solved by the usual medicines they prescribe. I plan one day to write a post, as methods of rationality and AI might help in diagnosing situations.

There should be more talk about concentration of power, decoupling from the masses, and social fragmentation around here.

Disruptive technologies amplify the economic inequality gap within countries, and between countries.

• New technologies, like automation or farming, quickly benefit a few number of people, basically the owners
  • As new technology emerges, the general population will see wage stagnation, job displacements, and will be able to get some benefit from the new technology only after a long time
• New disruptive technologies tend to directly benefit fewer and fewer people, while a larger side of the population has less to offer
  • While it is true that often new technologies will increase the benefits for everybody, e.g. more food, on the other hand the gap between people is humongous (e.g. food quality is way different), and who owns the food can steer the choices of the many
• At some point, the few people will not need anymore the general population to reach certain goals, and this can go on and on, especially with an exponential increase in technology (just look for the fact that now tech companies basically dwarf most of the others, and in the past century we had manufacturing companies, so these has never reached the power of the tech companies)
• Coupled to the fact that human individuals in the most developed countries are becoming more and more individualistic, with capillary technology it will be very easy for powerful players with amazing technology to steer humanity

Which are the consequences of this? I do not see many people discussing it on the forum. 

While it is true that the AI itself might doom humanity, I consider human dynamics to be a greater threat (just for the fact that investing in AI can increase the likelihood of these fewer people to own the world, and this might increase the likelihood of humanity AI doom).

This is a better defined problem to the usual AI safety talk. I think it should be something that needs to be addressed asap with public discourse. We need to focus on the right things in my opinion. 

It might also have some implicit benefits on usual AI safety (and to be sincere, I do not see current AI research level at the level of research in math or fundamental physics, where first principles approaches and taking your own time to deeply think about problems are preferred, but this is another topic for another day).

Do you know why the error bars in the replication are smaller than the original one?  (just more people?) And with which confidence is the null hypothesis (difference = 0) is rejected in both cases?

I noticed the most successful people, in the sense of advancing their career and publishing papers, I meet at work have a certain belief in themselves. What is striking, no matter their age/career stage, it is like they are already taking certain their success and where to go in the future.

I also noticed this is something that people from non-working class backgrounds manage to do.

Second point. They are good at finishing projects and delivering results in time.

I noticed that this was somehow independent from how smart is someone.

While I am very good at single tasks, I have always struggled with long term academic performance. I know it is true for some other people too.

What kind of knowledge/mentality am I missing? Because I feel stuck. 

This statement would not apply here, because:

• the post is about caring too much/only about something/someone we care about, and it does not imply about not caring/not favouring yourself
• caring about your child has a priority on caring about you, hence the topic of the post

Indeed, I would argue that it is important to care about oneself, if you want to help others for example, or have a nice life (or for example if you want to get a promotion, etc...).

But when you care too much, and do not look into the big picture of your actions, bad things can happen. Simple naive example: European lords/current dictators sucking up the money to build for themselves better castles/palaces instead of pouring some into society.

That's funny :)

Hi @Viliam .

On

  2) Some people destroy value.

Isn't this true even in a work place where people are paid? While in such a case, the person might be fired, sometimes the damage is too big (and among the possibilities I am thinking about, it seems someone working has a higher chance of creating a black swan than someone not working (maybe this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_CrowdStrike_incident)).

Anyway, if principle like the Pareto principle are true, we only need 20% of the working force to produce most of the goods. If you are talented, a UBI is a road to join that 20% :)

My model for the UN is

Basically, your model is: "UN wants the best people. To achieve that goal, it should pay them."

and my model for the (typical) UN interns

UN internships are an important way to facilitate people entering UN affiliated careers, higher the chance of getting a UN or international organisation job after. They train you. They boost your CV. They are an amazing opportunity to network, and perhaps enjoy your time.

I guess when you say 

My model is: "Some ambitious people use the association with UN to achieve their own political goal. They are quite happy to do it for free."

and your following text, this invalidates my first point. Though somehow, if I assume on the long run p(working at UN or other organisation|internship at UN) > p(working at UN or other organisation|no internship at UN), then perhaps I should have noticed that my premise of UN was probably false :)

I am sure these people are ambitious. My main point was that the sample selection of UN interns is not a good idea if you want to solve the problems UN says wants to solve, as you have already written. But I guess all of this is already acknowledged in EA-like spaces.

Your comment was quite detailed and clear, a part of this point...

deliver some extraordinary results.

Understanding this might perhaps help towards finding solutions (that are not of the kind lets break up the UN).

ChristianKI, I will try to explain better the points you raised:

• In this case, fantasy land ~ simple toy model. Obviously the world is way more complex, but this is how I approach many problems, starting from naive experiments. Then, you could argue that it would have been better to use a better toy model, something it would be interesting to explore.
• Never assumed personal connections should not matter (I wrote: "that does not only..."). On the contrary, I think personal connections are important. E.g. academia, were you get jobs with reference letters. This is a very good way to find competent people (e.g. in hard sciences). And so they are good towards what people are supposed to do. They can be useful for example for people with small CVs, but huge potential. But they are not the norm. My point was more about what to do when you do not have a clear defined scenario of merit, and personal connections mainly based on your social status are what matter.