I imagine that one way to reduce the way the financial impact of working 80% is to wait till you get a pay rise, (or move to a higher paying role at a new company), and make the switch at the same time, so you never feel like you're financially worse off than you were before.
Is a big sign that if there is something here, it's likely to be discovered. We're likely to find out in the next few years of this is the future of general purpose AI.
Thanks so much! This is precisely the sort of answer I was looking for!
Ok, yes that makes a lot more sense - whilst tarnishing by association increases incentives to point out flaws in your friend, it decreases incentives to point out flaws in your friend's friend.
And since most of your friends are also your friends' friends, the aggregate impact is to decrease incentives to point out flaws in your friends as well.
That sounds exactly like what I was saying: the reason insiders don't criticise other insiders isn't because it reduces their status by association. It's that other insiders don't like it, and they want to stay insiders.
1I actually think this mostly goes the other way:
Generally people aren't judged for associating with someone if they whistleblow that they're doing something wrong. But anyone who doesn't whistleblow might still be tarnished by association. So this creates an incentive to be the first to publicly report wrongs.
Now you appear to only be talking about small wrongs, with the idea being that you still want to associate with that person, hence whistleblowing wouldn't save you. But there's already a very strong incentive in such cases not to whistleblow, namely that you want to stay friends. So I'm not sure the additional impact on your reputation makes much impact beyond that.
~1% of the world dies every year. If we accelerate AGI sooner 1 year, we save 1%. Push back 1 year, lose 1%. So, pushing back 1 year is only worth it if we reduce P(doom) by 1%.
That would imply that if you could flip a switch which 90% chance kills everyone, 10% chance grants immortality then (assuming there weren't any alternative paths to immortality) you would take it. Is that correct?
Is this just a semantic quibble, or are you saying there's fundamental similarities between them that are relevant?
This is definitely true in software development. Ignore the hucksters selling clean code and agile software development or what not, and focus on blog posts by real practicing developers describing how they solved real world problems and the tradeoffs they faced.
https://www.scattered-thoughts.net/writing/on-bad-advice/ is a great post on this.