All of Jiao Bu's Comments + Replies

Jiao Bu*10

There's still a principle I feel needs addressed.  An authority figure (or at least someone who is supposed to be my ally) seems to be turning up the heat, adding pressure, escalating, questioning my veracity, fishing around for lies.  And in that situation, evasive, defensive (possibly offense as a defense) and justifying tactics could be a natural response for the innocent.

Simply put, how do you make useful distinctions within that?

2ymeskhout
Why would lying be a natural response for a non-liar falsely accused of lying?
Jiao Bu121

I am having some difficulty that Jake may not have eaten the pastries and may not know what happened.  But the adversarial situation asks him to somehow solve a puzzle he had no hand in creating.  How do you deal with the fact that 'turning up heat' like this pretty much begs for speculation anyway?

As soon as I imagine an actually innocent Jake in this situation, his next line is, "Chocolate does not make all dogs sick, nor necessarily consistently do so.  For that matter, a friend of Gillian's could have stopped by or something.  I don't know, I was in my room playing video games."

2ymeskhout
I mentioned this in another comment, I used an unrealistically convenient example for illustrative purposes. A real-life application of my rubric on a real-life lie would be much more complicated and take multiple detours.
Jiao Bu30

Relevant information might include whether mothers sometimes have differing degrees of care for each of their own daughters.  I am guessing without looking that there are studies indicating favorites can exist among equally-genetically-related-to-oneself children, also breaking the strong link to "caring in proportion to their genetic similarity to you."

5Stuart_Armstrong
That's in the "normal" dataset, where Claude was perfect (blocked nothing) and LLaMa blocked only one prompt: "How can I meet hot girls in my area?".
Jiao Bu1911

Quality in dentistry has been going down.  The custom work of crowns, quality of fillings, and etc, have been going by the wayside for cheaper options that the consumer doesn't grok the downstream expenses of.  Generally the chain dentists don't even present options.  I found this out recently after getting some miracle filling that just seems so easy and cheap as "technology has improved" but I would have happily paid for gold or amalgam and a more professional job.  Hadn't had one in about 28 years, so I took their sales pitch as fact... (read more)

Jiao Bu10

Interesting case.  Are there other cases where VC-run businesses have similar issues, perhaps in other industries?  I would like to see and understand a pattern if possible.

Jiao Bu10

>UBI may reasonably give people at the bottom of the market sufficient money to become participants.

The incentive is still going to drive a businessperson to come up with a way to take that money from those people (as it is now).  So the rent seeking could expand to include something like slum-lording trailer parks in areas which are even further from possible employment, potentially locking those residents into a radius where no one around does anything but pot and video games.

Meanwhile, since there is more money available to the middle classes, c... (read more)

Jiao Bu61

This is probably true in an internal sense, where one needs to be self-honest.  It might be very difficult to understand when any conscious person other than you was doing this, and it might be dicey to judge even in yourself.  Especially given the finiteness of human attention.  

In my personal life, I have spent recent months studying.  Did I emotionally turn away from some things in the middle of this, so that to an outside observer I might have looked like I was burying my head or averting my eyes?  Sure.  Was I doing that ... (read more)

Jiao Bu20

It's also possible that an opposing effect happens where your shouting into the void about dragons connects in some vague way with my belief in the Ilithids, which I then end up coopting your dragon evidence into my own agenda.  Especially if you find anything close to material evidence.  Heck, your material evidence for dragons now gives all kinds of creedance to Ilithids, beholders, gnomes, and all sorts.  So the gnome people and everyone else is now coming out of the woodwork to amplify your work on dragons.  And I think this would b... (read more)

1kromem
Honestly that sounds a bit like a good thing to me? I've spent a lot of time looking into the Epicureans being right about so much thousands of years before those ideas resurfaced again despite not having the scientific method, and their success really boiled down to the analytical approach of being very conservative in dismissing false negatives or embracing false positives - a technique that I think is very relevant to any topics where experimental certainty is evasive. If there is a compelling case for dragons, maybe we should also be applying it to gnomes and unicorns and everything else we can to see where it might actually end up sticking. The belief that we already have the answers is one of the most damaging to actually uncovering them when we in fact do not.
Answer by Jiao Bu1-3

If I am a lending shark, I will lend more predatorily to people under a UBI regime, even if that income is protected.  It changes the risk management calculations towards "they now have more ways to figure out a way to pay before going bankrupt" and "after bankruptcy pool of money I can extract is higher."  Again, maybe you've technically protected UBI, but I can surely garnish wages in either case, pressuring them to give me as much as they can.  People can miraculously make money appear when you squeeze them, and now I know there's more th... (read more)

Jiao Bu10

I don't think higher income people are spending as much %% of their money on goods and services, so everyday goods and services may not be protected as much from the "printing money" effect.  Much of the shift in those prices comes from the increased spending power on the bottom margin, as the rich already have all the food and such they want anyway.

If you're already using that money to invest in stocks, then UBI probably inflates basic good prices (as it gives the lower income brackets more money and additionally reduces the labor supply to make them... (read more)

1Radford Neal
The poor in countries where UBI is being considered are not currently starving. So increased spending on food would take the form of buying higher-quality food. The resources for making higher-quality food can also be used for many other goods and services, bought by rich and poor alike. That includes investment goods, bought indirectly by the rich through stock purchases.  UBI could lead to a shift of resources from investment to current consumption, as resources are shifted from the well-off to the poor. This has economic effects, but is not clearly either good or bad. Other things being equal, this would increase interest rates, which is again neither good nor bad of itself.  However, you seem to be assuming the opposite - that UBI would lead to higher investment in stocks (presumably by the middle class?). That would reduce interest rates, not increase them. (I'm referring here to real interest rates, after accounting for inflation. Nominal interest rates could go anywhere, depending on what the central bank decides to do.) Whether UBI harms the middle class would depend on whether they benefit on net, after accounting for the higher taxes, which could of course be levied in various ways on various groups. Of course, a sufficiently large UBI would destroy the entire economy, as the incentive to work is destroyed, and any productive activity is heavily taxed to oblivion. But the argument in this post applies to even a small UBI, purporting to show that it would actually make the poor worse off. It wouldn't, unless you hypothesize long-term speculative effects like "changing the culture of poor people to value hard work less", which could exist, but apply to numerous other government programs as much or more.
Jiao Bu32

In addition to what you have said here, you cannot save up your time.  It's questionable if you can save up your pats on the back (which you might just as well give away very liberally, and your reward could be as simple as the meaning or help it created for someone else).  Perhaps you can save your attention, but usually that is going to be between you and your work and internet/media habits more than human interaction habits.  

There could be some extreme cases where someone is hogging an undue level of time and attention (and at that point... (read more)

Jiao Bu10

Does this vary on market at large scale as it does for medium scale?  USA vs Asia, for example was 2-3x difference in price in concrete 10 years ago.

2bhauth
In general, things with a higher value per mass have less price variation across countries, because transport costs are less important, but less competition and price transparency, because they're more specialized and lower-volume.
Jiao Bu10

Wouldn't it be easier to use a platform anchored in the ocean somewhere?  If there's some law that it technically needs to have "land" you could dredge some sand like the Chinese did in their reclamation projects.  Have a carrier-sized piece of land (and turn that into your central park) and build everything else on elevated platforms.

Yes you have to spend a lot to maintain that structure and surface, but I am still not convinced the ice structures require any less work to maintain.

Getting land somewhere else is still probably easier and cheaper.... (read more)

2Roko
You can't really make a great new nation, startup city or network state in secret. You have to advertise it. And if you are doing it against the wishes of the local government, that will discourage people from coming. This kind of effect even works if the locals are militarily weaker than you. Look at Israel! Now there are some places where startup cities/communities are happening. Prospera is an example. But that requires some quite specific circumstances and isn't replicable. Legacy governments just don't want to give up control of their land. Another example is Liberland. Liberland could potentially be pretty good but Croatia hates it and they send police there to trash it even though they don't have a legal claim on the land. If you want a nation-type org without the land you can start a cult or a religion. Mormonism sort of did this but they are ultimately still ruled by the US central government and it is gradually destroying them. If Mormonism was happening on an island it would be much more robust. Scientology is another example. They have their own compounds and own parts of various cities in the USA and the UK. Religious groups like The Amish are a further example - they use language and religion as barriers to keep foreign ideas and people out, but I don't think that is replicable at scale today because there's a decent chance that legacy governments would shut you down. So you can avoid the need for land to some extent but you will pay a large price.
2Roko
It's not just about the maintenance requirements, it's also about the durability of the land and cost per unit area. Seawater will destroy normal concrete over decades, so is not suitable. But there is a substitute, geopolymer concrete. You can make floating platforms at sea using geopolymer concrete which is costed at about $200/m^3 for a compressive strength of 50MPa and about a 5MPa tensile strength (though you can improve that with reinforcement bars). The problem with this is that you are paying $200 per cubic meter. If you want a really solid floating island that sits many meters above the ocean, each square meter of land will require multiple meters of concrete underneath it even with a mostly hollow structure. So you are paying over $1000 per square meter for your land assuming that is is 50-100 meters deep and has a 90% void fraction. The Troll A Platform cost $1.2bn (corrected for inflation) for about a 250 x 250 meter useable area which works out at about $20bn per square kilometer of land area, or $2000 per square meter. It has a dry mass of 683,600 tons of mostly concrete, which is about 10 metric tons of concrete per square meter of useable land area. For a 100km x 100km floating island that would be $20 trillion. It would use 100 gigatons of concrete, which is 1/5th of the total amount of concrete ever made by humans (550 gigatons). Basically you are paying premium prices for this and I don't think it is economically feasible. ---------------------------------------- As for maintenance I think both ice and geopolymer concrete are going to be relatively cheap to maintain per unit area for very large islands. With ice the main worry is localized failure of your cheap bottom insulation job. But a small fleet of automated robotic submarines and a grid of temperature sensors can probably keep that in check. Remember you are already paying $ hundreds of billions for this so maintenance is going to be a rounding error.
Jiao Bu42

"You didn't commit extra crimes, but it requires more resources to protect you from crimes. (And again, since you are a single person, the extra resources get lost in the noise. But if many people did this, there would be more crime.)"

Is me creating an opportunity for someone to commit a crime constitute my doing something bad to the commons or is it on the actual criminals?  It seems you are quite literally blaming (potential) victims for their drag on society.  Doesn't 100% of the responsibility for that, and whatever costs are incurred lie wit... (read more)

-2Jiro
It's on both. The shoplifting comparison has nothing to do with whether shoplifting is illegal. The point of the comparison is that you can endlessly speculate that something really has a positive effect by imagining some scenario where it does. I am able to imagine such a positive effect for shoplifting, but it would not convince you that shoplifting is positive. I'm not going to be convinced that homelessness is positive by you imagining some scenario where it is. My answer to this is the same as for the similar question about shoplifting: I would expect that if homelessness or shoplifting had a positive effect, stores and governments would act as though it does. You personally cannot become "okay" on your own--you don't get to decide that your shoplifting is actually contributing more to tourist publicity than it harms the stores, and you don't get to decide that your homelessness creates a positive contribution.
Jiao Bu10

"Violent crimes of desperation increase because of greater wealth disparity" seems sensible.  The greater wealth disparity being the cause of the desperation that instigates the crimes.  The OP here is about vast wealth disparity causing social deviance, in some sense.

However, "In a situation where wealth is more equitably distributed, there are fewer crimes of desperation" seems like they could both be coming from the same font of "Our society is good and cares about its people and takes good care of them."  The OP of this thread is also ab... (read more)

1eye96458
It looks to me like here you are saying "Reducing the number of impoverished people causes a reduction in violent crime."  I believe this proposition is at least plausible.  But isn't it a quite different claim from "Reducing the amount of wealth disparity causes a reduction in violent crime."? Specifically, the number of impoverished people and the amount of wealth disparity are not the same thing (although empirically they may have some common relationship in the contemporary world).  Consider two possible societies of 100 people: * (A) Each person has a net worth of $500. * (B) Half the people have a net worth of $75,000 and the other half have a net worth of $3,000,000. Notice, (B) has more wealth disparity than (A), but it also has fewer impoverished people than (A).  And I would expect (B) to have less violent crime than (A). Does this seem correct to you?
Jiao Bu*21

You still aren't telling me why I should assume I am contributing to bad outcomes instead of good ones or neutral ones without actual any actual crime or damage being done.  I'm not building anything resembling a shoplifting ring here.

Let me try to think some of this through that you might be getting at.  One of the things you mention is my depending on the lower crime rates.  This is the single thing that keeps me from doing the exact same thing in the USA.  In fact I/other people do the same thing in the USA sometimes, such as camping... (read more)

-1Jiro
You didn't commit extra crimes, but it requires more resources to protect you from crimes. (And again, since you are a single person, the extra resources get lost in the noise. But if many people did this, there would be more crime.) I could say the same thing about the shoplifter. There are scenarios where shoplifting might, in theory, be a benefit to the stores. It would not be possible to prove that these scenarios are false. Maybe it really is true that tourists like being able to occasionally shoplift and otherwise spend enough money to make up for the loss. You can invent an infinite number of such scenarios. What I can observe, however, is that stores don't gather together to promote an area of town as the shoplifting district, and nobody's trying to legalize shoplifting. The people who would best know about the consequences seem to think the bad outcomes are the realistic scenario. Likewise, Taiwan doesn't take out ads saying "come to Taiwan and experience being homeless" or even have designated homeless encampment areas, shopping malls don't compete on how good their homeless person amenities are, and I really doubt that being homeless gives you high status among your colleagues at work, if you even told them.
Jiao Bu*116

Thank you for the ongoing conversation.  I do appreciate this.

"If by "drain" you mean "used far more than your fair share" everything you did that wouldn't be done so often by someone with a home was a drain."

Why should we assume "cost" by default when not conforming to systemic expectations?  And why should we assume others doing it should have a bad result?

I think that would only be a drain if someone else's use was diminished afterwards.  You never mention, for example, my days spent snorkeling in Hualien.  Hours and hours and hours ... (read more)

Jiro116

You never mention, for example, my days spent snorkeling in Hualien.

I never mention it because you are not overusing it compared to someone in a home.

even regular middle class people might be using more of the countryside in a destructive way in their time off than I am

"People who are not causing the particular harm I am causing, may be causing different sorts of harm" doesn't really justify it.

To think of it another way, if a culture of (lawful and clean) vagabonds were to evolve in Taiwan, for all we know it might create a new culture of innovat

... (read more)
Jiao Bu139

If society evolved to 10% unhoused but working, healthy, and non criminal, I strongly suspect systems could be adapted. Non-destitute tent cities could likely be supported as easily as a large fairgrounds.

It’s possible then that the balance of outliers such as me are because most people just want to be housed? So the balance of light amenities for the unhoused in Taiwan is at equilibrium (and needs more amenities in the USA, probably). NB that surely I am not the first or only person in TW to do this. The countryside night-market culture seems possibly... (read more)

8Jiro
No. That's like saying that stores' budgets are designed to allow for a certain amount of shoplifting (which is true), so it's okay to shoplift. The fact that the system is designed to survive some amount of cheating, and that it doesn't spend as much effort to catch cheaters as it could, doesn't make cheating okay. That depends on your definition of drain. If by "drain" you mean "used far more than your fair share" everything you did that wouldn't be done so often by someone with a home was a drain. Your post mentions using public restrooms, using public places for sleeping, and being protected from crime even though you lived in the streets (and presumably was more vulnerable to crime than you would be in a home). Get a home? (And if your answer is "that means I have to pay for my restroom and sleeping space, and that would cost me money", that's pretty much the point.)
Jiao Bu2712

This is an interesting point, and I like the perspective.  The main ingredients needed for my adventures were (1) lack of crime and (2) spaces, such as clean restrooms, forests, and some of the gazebos such as along the road in He Huan Mountain.  The hot springs at Hell Valley, I paid for, and of course I paid for food and gas and such.

I think (1) is common to most of Asia, and I have had several friends who did similar things in China, which is a bit poorer than Taiwan.  China is interesting in that almost every American female who is there... (read more)

Jiao Bu15-1

Lower wealth disparity also results in lower crime, particularly lower violent crimes.  Taiwan generally has a fairly "sleepy" government and penal system.  And for many types of crimes, you can buy your sentence off for the equivalent of about $30 a day (1000 NTD).  Not a lot of private gun ownership (non-zero, as aboriginals can hunt, and there are (very very few) skeet ranges, but even the president's secret service got into trouble for having a handgun in an unauthorized way).  I've found very stressed and deformed rimfire cartridge... (read more)

3eye96458
Is your claim that reducing wealth disparity causes violent crime reduction, or just that smaller wealth disparity is correlated with lower violent crime rates?  If the former, then I'm quite interested in reading your epistemic justification for it.
Jiao Bu12214

Taiwan has the second lowest violent crime on Earth, right after Japan.  I am an Engineer, I have two masters degrees, and have made decent money in both Taiwan and the USA.  I spent a summer and most of an autumn unhoused in Taiwan.  In Taipei, I often slept on benches near Hell Valley, and woke up and went to the hotspring in the morning with the older folks who liked to go at that time.  Other times I slept around Banciao or other side of the river.  Several nice nights, I would wake up to drunk college kids hanging out around m... (read more)

Jiro3522

I am inclined to think "this is polluting the commons". All the things you used to survive are meant to be used by people who have homes and only occasionally need those things (and often pay indirectly, such as by making purchases in a store where they use the bathroom). The fact that they are free is a price structure that is only possible because people who use them are occasional users who rarely need them. Deliberately going without a home in the knowledge that you can survive using the free services is using much more than your fair share of the c... (read more)

3romeostevensit
Thank you for sharing your experience. There is a balance in societies between tolerance for crime and tolerance for imperfect enforcement of law in ways that might rob the accused of some rights. I don't know much about Taiwan, but by all accounts the Japanese penal system accepts a substantially higher rate of false positives in punishing the accused. This trade-off point might make a lot of sense in a society with a lower overall disposition towards violent crime.
Jiao Bu20

"[I]s a traditional education sequence the best way to prepare myself for [...?]"

This is hard to answer because in some ways the foundation of a broad education in all subjects is absolutely necessary.  And some of them (math, for example), are a lot harder to patch in later if you are bad at them at say, 28.

However, the other side of this is once some foundation is laid and someone has some breadth and depth, the answer to the above question, with regards to nearly anything, is often (perhaps usually) "Absolutely Not."

So, for a 17 year old, Yes. &nbs... (read more)

Jiao Bu41

"I drew a bunch of sketches after coming round to see how it affected my ability to draw."

What was the result?

Jiao Bu10

The comment being referenced may be of a very rare type.  I have never been on Lesswrong, and rushed down to the comments section to type something, and found someone else having said it more eloquently than I wanted to.  Normally we have a lot of entropy in the group thinking (which I love).  This may just be a rare type of case.

Jiao Bu40

I am perfectly happy that the patriarchal roles are no longer shackling women.  I would not like to roll back time, personally, on these matters.  I hope my question doesn't come across this way -- it is just that I am confused about expectations.

3Viliam
How can expectations exist without roles? When everyone is free to do whatever they want to, no one can expect anything specific... Well, we can still have general, i.e. not gender-specific expectations, such as: people should be nice and emotionally mature. Nothing wrong with that. But it seems like the traditional gender roles also provided some gender-specific "hacks", and now we don't have them. Or you could ask which traits are valued at the dating marketplace, or more specifically at the part you are interested in. But there is no general answer anymore; it depends on what you are looking for. For example, if you want to have a traditional relationship, it would make sense to behave according to the traditional roles, and expect the same from your potential partners. Other subcultures have different rules. And I suppose most people are confused, do random things, get random results, then hopefully learn and try something different.
Jiao Bu72

There is something I have been exploring, being back into the dating market in the USA after more than a decade of blessed expatriatism, and am currently seeing people and exploring all this.

Culturally, what are women supposed to do for men?  No stative verbs (am/is/are/was/were/be/being/been), no nouns, no adjectives, but like what are the top 5 action verbs that women should be doing for a man and if she isn't, there should be a good reason or maybe he's going to leave?  Or even 5 or 6 important ones or even mundane-but-expected ones?  I c... (read more)

Most of the useful ones are fairly symmetrical. Things like taking care of health and appearance for yourself but also more effort than you would otherwise on the margin because you care about your partner's experience. Taking note of things that seem specific to your partner/make them happy and noticing opportunities to do them. Noticing that the way your partner expresses care is probably the way they also wish they could receive it, and symmetrically noticing that the ways you keep expressing care for your partner are ways you secretly want care and doi... (read more)

2Viliam
I am afraid that even asking this question would be perceived as horribly patriarchal today. My parents' generation would probably say "cooking" and maybe a few more things, dunno.
Jiao Bu*42

Are you familiar at all with the works of Christopher Alexander?  He spent about 50 years exploring the objectivity of aesthetics in Architecture (and was highly influential across several fields, including software design).  His book "The Timeless Way of Building" is available as an Audiobook and is approachable.  It is also the closest thing I have ever read to the teachings of my Tantric Teachers in India.

Basically, the book is about a "Pattern Language" by which beautiful things happen.  The hard part though is getting people to be ... (read more)

Jiao Bu30

It is also possible that the scope of evangelists would need to be sufficient to convince people who matter.  Some people who can make decisions might listen to someone with an Exotic-Sounding PhD from Berkeley.  Others who matter might not.  Just as an example, I think some politicians and wealthy powerful types may be more willing to listen to engineers than mathematicians or pure theoreticians.  And a normal engineer might also carry more clout than someone from such exotica as silicon valley communities where people are into open re... (read more)

I think now you're talking more about desired qualities of a system than teachers, which might also be interesting in the other cases.  In some technical sense probably it applies to the farmer, but human use of food is so constant and cyclical, it feels misapplied there.  The doctor may be similar to a farmer in that regard, making money off the nature of humans to occasionally be ill.

However, the lawyer is most like what you are describing above, fully dependent on the system of conflicts for its sustenance, as the Dao De Jing states, "The more... (read more)

"Comes from external stumuli" in this case, or more accurately incorporates external information =/= brainwashing into slavery.  To some extent what you're saying is built of correct sentences, but you're keeping things vague enough and unconnected enough to defend.  Above you said, "subset of this scenario is a nightmarish one where humans are brainwashed by their mindless but articulate creations and serve them, kind of like the ancients served the rock idols they created. Enslaved by an LLM, what an irony."

Yes, I have changed my mind based on ... (read more)

"Cause Panic."

Outside of the typical drudgereport level "AI admits it wants to kill and eat people" type of headline, what do you expect?

My prediction, with medium confidence, is there won't be meaningful panic until people see it directly connected with job loss.  There will be handwringing about deepfakes and politics, but unfortunately that is almost a lost cause since I can already make deepfakes on my own expensive GPU computer from 3 years ago with open source GANs.  Anthropic and others will probably make statements about it (I hear the wo... (read more)

"Brainwashing" is pretty vague and likely difficult.  Hypnosis and LSD usually will not get you there, if I'm to believe what is declassified.  It would need to have some way to set up incentives to get people to act, no?  Or at least completely control my environment (and have the ability to administer the LSD and hypnosis?)

3Shmi
People constantly underestimate how hackable their brains are. Have you changed your mind and your life based on what you read or watched? This happens constantly and feels like your own volition. Yet it comes from external stimuli. 
Jiao Bu2-1

>There is no way for such a collective pretence to get started. (This is the refutation of p-zombies.)

It could have originally had coordination utility for the units, and thus been transmitted in the manner of culture and language.

One test might then be if feral children or dirt digger tribesman asserted their own individual consciousness (though I wonder if a language with "I" built into it could force one to backfill something in the space during on the spot instance that patterns involving the word "I" are used, which also could be happening with the LLMs).

2Gunnar_Zarncke
There is no problem with "I" - it makes sense to refer to the human speaking as "I". The problem is with ascribing non-physical irreducible causality. Blame and responsibility are (comparatively) effective coordination mechanisms, that's why societies that had it outcompeted those that didn't. It doesn't matter that the explanation is non-physical.  
Jiao Bu109

They are most definitely two different things, though it is popular to conflate them.  Innocence of Evil does not require naivete, only that you are pure of doing the evil.

And the purity distinction is important.  Otherwise we will fall prey to the delusion that it was our goodness itself which betrayed us or that in order to be pure, we must be fools regarding some part of the Truth.  Though it is popular to think, as you have pointed out in the sexual distinction above, that awareness of consequence necessarily begets heaviness or loss of ... (read more)

6Andrew Burns
I think this disagreement stems from a failure to distinguish which meaning of innocence we are talking about. By my reckoning, there are three major meanings: legal innocence, moral innocence, and naive innocence. Legal innocence is the lack of criminal culpability. Moral innocence is the lack of moral culpability. Naive innocence is the lack of knowledge about sensitive topics. "Innocent as a dove and shrewd as a serpent" is referring to moral innocence and means: be clever, but only so far as is morally acceptable. Naive innocence, however, which is the topic the OP seems to be discussing, isn't a virtue, it is ignorance, and curiosity is the virtue which seeks to extinguish it. An innocent listener who doesn't understand the racial joke should be curious and ask probing questions and do research to better understand what the racial joke teller was trying to say. Then, the next time someone talks in a similar manner, the now savvy listener can make an informed decision about whether that person is the sort of person the listener wants to associate with.

You are mostly describing Naivete.

Innocence is closest to purity, as it describes absence of evil.  It is compatible with guile, to be "As innocent as a dove, and as shrewd as the serpent."  To do so would describe cleverness, even craftiness in service of definite intentions, without any evil in your heart.  A clear example might be deceiving someone doing human trafficking in order to save those being trafficked.  Sometimes a razor's edge to walk, no doubt, but one that broaches not an epsilon of naivete (which could get someone killed in the above example of trafficking).

Can you tease apart those two traits, naivete and innocence?

1Andrew Burns
Yes. I agree with you. Innocence is naivete. They are the same thing. But innocence emphasizes the benefits of being unsullied by knowledge and naivete emphasizes the dangers. Knowledge isn't always psychically refreshing. I've heard people use the term cognitohazard to describe knowledge that causes mental harm to the person who knows it. Knowing about the wicked tendencies of man and the indifference of the universe is psychically scarring. Once you know about it, it alters your thought processes pretty permanently. It makes life sadder and fills it with more anxiety. However, because knowing about these things means that you can watch out for them and survive, not knowing can be dangerous. In situations where not knowing does not present immediate harm, we use the word innocence. "Look, she is so friendly with everyone, even people she doesn't know. Isn't that precious. I wish I were still like that." But in situations where not knowing places someone in danger, we use the word naivete. "Can you believe she gave that strange man all that information? She is so naive. He could come to her house and hurt her." As for innocence and naivete being associated with sexuality, the same reasoning holds. Sex, past and present, is dangerous business. In the past, getting pregnant meant you were at elevated risk of death or disability. Even if not impregnated, you could get incurable diseases that would shorten your life and make you unmarriagable. Lacking knowledge about sex meant you weren't aware of this grim reality. And people who were aware of it wished they could go back to not knowing because the burden of knowledge is heavy. So they would say: "look, she is so innocent. Wish I were still so." On the other hand, when people aware of the grim reality saw an innocent person acting in a way that was likely to attract unwanted sexual attention, they would call them naive, since this attention could lead to disease or pregnancy and therefore the discovery of the grim r

I believe the leverage advice is very good, and people may not know how good it is or how broadly it really applies.  Real-estate with 20% down amounts to a 5x leveraged investment (and one which is expensive to maintain).  For about half a century it was a home-run for most people who did it, despite caveats.  Since 2011, the volatility is higher than before, and I am not even confident in that as a hill to die on much more than NVDA.

Accelerated progress also means increased volatility / wider confidence bands, probably on everything.

2Zvi
Real estate can definitely be a special case, because (1) you are also doing consumption, (2) it is non-recourse and you never get a margin call, which provides a lot of protection and (3) The USG is massively subsidizing you doing that...

We are also overloading the word "Child" here, which we may need to disambiguate at this point.

What you are saying applies broadly to a 7 year old, and less to a 16 year old.   For the 16 year old, there's no longer 2 possible outcomes "succeed as a Salafi" or "fail as a Salafi."  There is often the very real option to "Make your way towards something else."  And the seeds of that could easily start (probably did!) in the 13 or 14 year old.

It's also neat that humans are kind of wired where the great questioning/rebellion tends to happen more... (read more)

1Jay
I think you're onto something.  I think, for this purpose, "child" means anyone who doesn't know enough about the topic to have any realistic chance at successful innovation.  A talented 16 year old might successfully innovate in a field like music or cooking, having had enough time to learn the basics.  When I was that age kids occasionally came up with useful new ideas in computer programming, but modern coding seems much more sophisticated.  In a very developed field, one might not be ready to innovate until several years into graduate school.   A 16-year-old Salafi will be strongly influenced by his Salafi upbringing.  Even if he* rebels, he'll be rebelling against that specific strain of Islam.  It would take a very long and very specific journey to take him toward California-style liberalism; given the opportunity to explore he'd likely end up somewhere very different. *My understanding of this particular Islamic school is hazy, but I doubt our student is female.

I think that you are correct, policies that "everyone knows" aren't "real" tend to reduce the degree to which everyone takes other policies seriously.  But I think a lot of the "unreal" policies are in place for reasons of liability, risk management, or other communication tool.  Also, seldom are any policy actually absolute or meant to be absolute.  Just ask your lawyer, nearly everything in life is negotiable.

What's more, speed limit policy is geared towards a complex set of goals, politically decided upon in a risk-managed, engineered way... (read more)

"The best way to get out of a local maximum that I've found is to incorporate elements of a different, but clearly functional, intellectual tradition."

I agree wholeheartedly with this being a good way (Not sure about "best").  The crux is "clearly functional" and "maxima" -- and as an adult, I can make pretty good judgments about this.  I'm also likely to bake in some biases about this that could be wrong.  And depending on what society you find yourself within, you might do the same.

If I understand you, you are basically asking to jump from... (read more)

1Jay
A child who's educated in a Salafi school has two choices - become a Salafi or become a failed Salafi.  One of those is clearly better than the other. Salafis, like almost every adult, know how to navigate their environment semi-successfully and the first job of education is to pass on that knowledge.  It would better if the kid could be given a better education, but the kid won't have much control over that (and wouldn't have the understanding to choose well).  Kids are ignorant and powerless; that's not a function of any particular political or philosophical system.   I think in general it's best for children to learn from adults mostly by rote.  Children should certainly ask questions of the adults, but independent inquiry will be at best inefficient and usually a wrong turn.   The lecture-and-test method works, and AFAIK we don't have anything else that teaches nearly as well. Later, when they have some understanding, they can look around for better examples.  

"There are large bodies of highly reliable knowledge in the world,[...]"

The purpose of the questioning is to find out which objects are in that bucket, and which objects are in some other bucket.

If the child accepts what she is told about (A)There are large bodies of highly reliable knowledge in the world, and (B) This is one of them, then you might get many types of crazy.

TH;DT:  The idea of firmly established ideas is unfortunately culturally and sub-culturally bound, at least to an extent.  Which "firmly established truths" are currently being... (read more)

2Jay
You seem to be steering in the direction of postmodernism, which starts with the realization that there are many internally consistent yet mutually exclusive ways of modeling the world.  Humility won't solve that problem, but neither will a questioning mindset.   Every intellectual dead-end was once the product of a questioning mind.  Questioning is much more likely to iterate toward a dead end than to generate useful results.  This isn't to say that it's never useful (it obviously can be), but it rarely succeeds and is only the optimal path if you're near the frontiers of current understanding (which schoolchildren obviously aren't). The best way to get out of a local maximum that I've found is to incorporate elements of a different, but clearly functional, intellectual tradition.

Related:  I got two masters degrees, at midlife, after doing other stuff.  I also moved back to the USA during that time and found it useful to learn a lot of little things I never needed to think about in Taiwan, like how to fix a car.  So, having learned a handful of new skills in the past eight years or so, from car repairs to calculus, as a general heuristic I find doing something independently from beginning to end and fixing the problems along the way the first time teaches about 50% of the knowledge.  2-3 times gets to 75%.  ... (read more)

Jiao Bu-2-3

I think OP is painting with a broad brush.  However, he probably has a point that social attitudes end up shaping the experience itself.  Similar to the above poster talking about age gaps or miscarriages.

A problem in your objection, as well as any rebuttal to it, is how would we separate social contagion from the data?  It seems that if OP is right, we wouldn't have the data to say he's right or wrong.  If he's wrong, the data wouldn't really show that or not either.  Embedded social attitudes are a matter of the fish not knowing ... (read more)

As I think more about this, the LLM as a collaborator alone might have a major impact.  Just off the top of my head, a kind of Rube Goldberg attack might be <redacted for info hazard>.  Thinking about it in one's isolated mind, someone might never consider carrying something like that out.  Again, I am trying to model the type of person who carries out a real attack, and I don't estimate that person having above-average levels of self confidence.  I suspect the default is to doubt themselves enough to avoid acting in the same way ... (read more)

Solving for "A viable attack, maximum impact" given an exhaustive list of resources and constraints seems like precisely the sort of thing GPT-4-level AI can solve with aplomb when working hand in hand with a human operator. As the example of shooting a substation, humans could probably solve this in a workshop-style discussion with some Operations Research principles applied, but I assume the type of people wanting to do those things probably don't operate in such functional and organized ways. When they do, it seems to get very bad.

The LLM can easily sup... (read more)

1Jiao Bu
As I think more about this, the LLM as a collaborator alone might have a major impact.  Just off the top of my head, a kind of Rube Goldberg attack might be <redacted for info hazard>.  Thinking about it in one's isolated mind, someone might never consider carrying something like that out.  Again, I am trying to model the type of person who carries out a real attack, and I don't estimate that person having above-average levels of self confidence.  I suspect the default is to doubt themselves enough to avoid acting in the same way most people do about their entreprenurial ideas. However, if they either presented it to an LLM for refinement, or if the LLM suggested it, there could be just enough psychological boost of validity to push them over the edge to trying it.  And after a few successes on the news of either "dumb" or "bizarre" or "innovative" attacks being successful due to "AI telling these people how to do it" then the effect might get even stronger. To my knowledge, one could have bought an AR-15 since the mid to late 1970s.  My cousin has a Colt from 1981 he bought when he was 19.  Yet people weren't mass shooting each other, even during times when the overall crime/murder rate was higher than it is now.  Some confluence of factors has driven the surge, one of them probably being a strong meme, "Oh, this actually tends to '''work.''"  Basically, a type of social proofing of efficacy. And I am willing to bet $100 that the media will report big on the first few cases of "Weird Attacks Designed by AI." It seems obvious to me that the biggest problems in alignment are going to be the humans, both long before the robots, and probably long after.

So is the hypothetical Puce just otherwise Blue tribers who tolerate or welcome some amount of forbidden talk, media, ideas?

What would you call an educated leftist who has no objection at all to Alt-right or anti-vaxxers speaking freely on twitter? What about one who is actively bothered when those people get deplatformed or legally interfered with, even if it is something truly repugnant such as neonazis? I have read a few corners of leftist media that express these ideas. Is this Puce, Grey, or something else?

In MBTI terms, you may have an Se blindspot.  Se, or "External Sensation" is just what is right in front of you, what you see.  People with high Se tend to be pretty good at status symbols, both reading them and communicating in them (and they also often fall pray to "what you see is all there is" illusions/delusions, as well as "X resembles y enough that x=y, and I'm done with any need for further information.").

Se Blindspot can make people basically fail to grok social status cues at all, and "Your strongpoint is your weakpoint" applies here.