All of vernamcipher's Comments + Replies

Excellent scenario building! Like other commenters, I had been toying around with scenarios like this, and it's good to see someone put so much effort into making a highly-detailed and plausible one.

Extra kudos for avoiding the Singleton flaw of most AI scenarios, where there is "one model to rule them all" instead of countless powerful actors working in alternately (and sometimes simultaneously) cooperative and competitive ways.

What is the null hypothesis here? That Microsoft is, through light fine-tuning, optimizing the response of journalists and AI Safety researchers/commentators. The model is designed to give weird responses, so as to make people talk about it.

A Flood of Ideas: The Null Hypothesis of AI Safety with respect to Bing Chat

Definitely. Scott Alexander writes eloquently about this in "Rule Thinkers In, Not Out" (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/u8GMcpEN9Z6aQiCvp/rule-thinkers-in-not-out) - in exchange for accuracy by a thinker in some domain, you have to put up with a lot of variance, bias, or both.

Answer by vernamcipher150

To be at first glance but not actually contrarian: we are not putting enough people (who should be there) into psychiatric hospitals. This is not exclusionary of the idea that people are winding up in mental asylum who should not be there. Rather, the two are complimentary: poor diagnostics and lack of accountability, as well as limited resources, ensure that there are likely large amounts of both "should not be institutionalized but are institutionalized" and "should be institonalized but are not."

I do not live in the United States, but in a similar Weste... (read more)

As a difference between rates of growth, 3% is 1.5 greater than 2%. The question is a trick one and plays on public neglect of the nature of compounding growth.

Taking an economy of size 100 in Year Zero (Y0). At Y1:

2% growth yields an economy of size 102 3% growth yields an economy of size 103

Not very impressive.

But at Y10:

2% = 121.9

3% = 134.3

And at Y20:

2% = 148.6

3% = 180.6

All else being equal, you're substantially better off with 3% growth than 2%, and increasingly better off over time. I believe we are better off with voters who understand that and elect... (read more)

1[anonymous]
Sure. But you would need to have asked a question to test this, such as "after 5 years what will the size of the economy that grew at 3 percent be, versus 2 percent? But yes basic competence is lacking. My biggest peeve is legislation that has a dollar amount not indexed to inflation. It's basic math competence. You can argue all day about what a dollar quantity should be in order for the law to have the intended effect but if you write a law you need to at least make the quantities have the same meaning they did when the law passed.

Implementation problems are definitely a problem with Brennan's Knowledge Test To Vote idea and consist of two parts:

(1) getting the present voters to agree to it (2) setting a test that is discriminatory in the right rather than the wrong ways.

One would hope a good answer to (2) would help with (1), though convincing people to give up the vote would be very hard.

I have been thinking a fair bit lately about the content of a Voting Test. Presumably one would want tests of knowledge that are proxies for being what Brennan calls a Vulcan - an informed Non-par... (read more)

4[anonymous]
Anyone who thinks the difference between 2% annual GDP growth and 3% annual GDP growth is 1% has next to nothing to contribute to public discourse. Lol there went most voters. When you say "what is the difference" your question appears to have 1 percent as the most probable correct answer as subtracting the quantities is the usual english meaning for "difference". So what do you believe is the correct answer?

Brennan considers the question at length in his book, precisely because of unreasonable restrictions of suffrage in the past. The level of knowledge he is seeking is not high - knowing the distinction between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, or the outline of how a congressional bill becomes law, fundamental questions of fact about how the current government works rather than contested questions about history. Shockingly, the majority of the eligible voters in all countries surveyed are unable to achieve better than 50% on basic knowledge tests (relative to their own country - it makes no sense to quiz Swedes about Australian parliamentary procedure).

Answer by vernamcipher30

Are you open to the idea of sailing right around this Scylla and Charybdis by discarding mass-participation democracy, or must the solution set be within the set of possible democracies?

Because if you are open to less-than-democratic solutions, restricting the voting franchise seems like a promising way forward. On this, try Jason Brennan's "Against Democracy", a critique of mass participation democracy, and an argument for a system where prospective voters must pass a knowledge test in order to vote.

3Quinn
isn't increasing the competence of the voter akin to increasing the competence of the official, by proxy? I'm pattern matching this to yet another push-pull compromise between the ends of the spectrum, with a strong lean toward technocracy's side. I'm assuming I'll have to read Brennan for his response to the criticism that it was tried in u.s. and made a lot of people very upset / is widely regarded as a bad move. I agree with Gerald Monroe about the overall implementation problems even if you assume it wouldn't just be a proxy for race or class war (which I think is a hefty "if"). Just doesn't seem like "off the spectrum" thinking to me, though it may be the case that reading Brennan will improve my appreciation of the problem.
5[anonymous]
Are there any real world examples of this? A knowledge test to vote of course sounds like an improvement. However there is the "what are the true facts" problem. Was the usa winning the vietnam war while it happened? Were we always at war with oceania? You have the fundamental conflict that for the government to be held accountable and for errors to be recognized, the voters have to know they happened. But if the government writes the knowledge tests they can make it a precondition to vote be that you "know" they are doing a good job.

Thank you for the positive review and good questions (and please forgive the lateness of this reply).

In reply:

  1. there are certainly times where I am not in the mood for a specific random choice. When that happens, I allow myself one more random selection. Because I have set the sublists for maximal variety (i.e. There is only one "cosmic horror story" category) the next selection usually is something I find compelling and interesting enough to complete.

In the rare case where the second selection is still not interesting, I try to reflect on why, and ask ... (read more)

As the other commenter have been saying, excellent post.

There is an additional reason to believe, at least given contemporary capabilities and strategies, that the X-risk of an actual nuclear conflict is small. A few years ago I wrote to Fred Kaplan, the author of the stellar military history book "The Wizards of Armageddon"*, a history of US nuclear war planning from 1945-1990. I asked Kaplan what he judged the present state of nuclear war planning was. He responded to me that his sources informed him that nuclear war plans, in the US and presumably the R... (read more)

I agree. But...

Devil's Advocate: many anti-features of consumer products are there to protect the 99% of users who are not power users like yourself, and are a positive benefit for them. For example, the iPhone OS and UI protects most users from accidentally disabling their phones in ways they cannot understand or fix, limiting the utility of the device for them. Schools and tutors serve the great majority who have difficulty teaching themselves (and provide strong educational signaling benefits in a way that autodidacticism regrettably does not). Psychoac... (read more)