What makes you say 3 years?
Who have been 6s?
Thanks for writing this out!
I think most writing glosses over this point because it'd be hard to know exactly how it would kill us and doesn't matter, but it hurts the persuasiveness of discussion to not have more detailed and gamed out scenarios.
Yes, same. Thanks so much for compiling it!
"We (Tamay Besiroglu and I) think this claim is strongly overstated, and disagree with the suggestion that “It's time for EA leadership to pull the short-timelines fire alarm.” This post received a fair amount of attention, and we are concerned about a view of the type expounded in the post causing EA leadership to try something hasty and ill-considered."
What harm do you think will come if this happens and what do you think should be done instead?
Nice to see other people interested in the topic!
Robert McIntyre, the CEO of Nectome, the brain preservation startup, is probably the person who knows the most about this space.
For those interested, I did a writeup on a talk Robert gave that summarizes his thoughts and process here:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/N7j4xHkyjKbimmF6A/notes-on-robert-mcintyre-s-brain-preservation-talk-at-the-1
And I interviewed him here:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/s2N75ksqK3uxz9LLy/interview-with-nectome-ceo-robert-mcintyre-brain
Thanks for writing this up. I'd be interested in the more in-depth post.
Thanks for sharing this! It's inspiring to dig up old posts where people talk about their goals and to see how well it worked out.
Yes, I think Pigovian taxes are really interesting and useful. I suppose then I'm looking for examples of privately implemented Pigovian taxes that fixed a problem successfully.
Yes, I agree that a grocery store is a great example. I suppose I'm looking for examples where people recognized a problem, changed the incentives, and then it fixed/improved things.
Thanks for writing this up! It's a good idea and a thing worth experimenting with.
The qualia of enjoyment or not is different for different people. I don't have the gleeful anticipation of an upcoming twist. My main reason for avoiding spoilers is it ruins the feeling of suspense.
This also applies to sporting events as well. If I'm watching a fight where I know the outcome, it's much less enjoyable than if I don't know it. If I know someone wins, I'm not on edge when they're getting punched and kicked by their opponent like I would be if I thought those blows may decide the fight.
Yes, good idea! I wonder how much we'll end up needing stored seeds in the future or if we/AI will be able to mitigate any problems.
Is produce quality decaying? You mean where we maximize things like storage ability at the expense of flavor?
I want to visit the Svalbard Global Seed Vault sometime.
Yes, it's really hard to predict what shifts will happen as we become more and more digital and advanced. Buying and selling human minds might be restricted, though.
I wonder what antiquities will be the most valued.
That's a cool idea! It'd be funny to have an index fund of the top n rare species. I wonder if anyone is doing/can do this now.
That's a cool idea! Plot of 2121's heist movie will be about robbing the San Diego Frozen Zoo
Yes, authenticity matters so much. Original work is a good bet although I wonder where NFTs will bring things.
Re: financial fraud and art. It’s possible we will have AI that will stop that but it’s hard to say.
Yes, success stories in investing in art/collectibles seem like survivorship bias. There are probably ways to sift the wheat from the chaff but like startups, it seems really tough. You can follow the heuristics but even Y-Combinator’s success rate is still so low.
Do you think pre-NFT prints will still be a good bet?
Land is a good option. Technology ...
Yes, it's a good point -- people often ignore the storage costs.
I wonder what the future of antiques will be.
The world of limited edition cars is interesting: https://www.jamesedition.com/stories/cars/the-vip-list-question-how-to-gain-access-to-a-limited-edition-supercar-1000117/
It's apparently discouraged to resell them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aston_Martin_Valkyrie#Resale_policy
Yes, definitely. I think rare elements are some of the safest bets.
You'd need quite the humidor to store the cigars that long, haha! I had a Cuban cigar once and couldn't tell the difference but I probably don't have the palette.
I wonder what the recreational drug scene will be like including tobacco and alcohol products -- if they'll still be popular. Wine is a good pick. I always think of one of my favorite Columbo episodes that features and winery owner who likes buying old and rare wines.
Horse racing will probably be outlawed by then.
Signaling post-scarcity does seem like one of the most resilient stores of wealth unless we figure out wireheading right and remove the need.
Re: value for who. It's a great point. If I was maximizing value for others, I'd probably go with AI safety.
Re: longevity. I'm right there with you. I wrote a whole series on it: https://www.johncgreer.com/the-three-buckets/
Re: fuzzy ownership. Yes, I think of things like the controversy with the British Museum's holdings.
The seashell joke is a good one! I'll have to look up his stuff.
Berkshire Hathaway is another safe bet. It would be cool to get actual certificates too. Reminds me of old movies where people are robbing trains for bearer bonds.
Vanguard isn't cheating, haha. I think it's one of the safest bets but it is so difficult to know what kind of government/economic systems will be around and negate the wealth.
I like the out of the box answer! It'd be an interesting thought experiment of it's own to figure out how to best store reputation. I'm not sure how valuable 100 year old data about people's spending habits would be, though, except as a historical novelty.
This was a fun read! Thanks for writing it!
You're welcome, Charlie!
Yes, I would love to interview him and find out.
Yes, I had the exact same experience. I was happy to see it works but it can be kind of annoying because it's the loudest right when we're going to eat or watch something.
Thanks for writing this up! We need more people thinking about how to defeat aging.
Curious if you've read Nintil's posts? https://nintil.com/categories/aging/
Thanks for writing this out. I'm more sympathetic to Nate Soares view and wish more rationalists would take action on their beliefs and this is useful to point to the distinction that exists.
I asked a sleep doc this:
"I’ve read a lot of advice about using the bed just for sleep and sex. I’m wondering if there’s actually some special reason why sex is an exception or if it’s just to be pragmatic (you don’t think people will actually refrain from using their beds for sex)?"
He said this:
"Good question. You’re right that it’s not about sex itself. Just that sex doesn’t really seem to interfere with the bed/sleep conditioning process. It (usually) does not take hours and hours like tossing and turning. Plus, there are reasons it may enhance ability to sleep..."
Mike Johnson's article might interest you! https://opentheory.net/2019/11/neural-annealing-toward-a-neural-theory-of-everything/
I would also love your take on his opinion!
That talk is one of my favorites ever and so inspiring. Upvoting for actually doing the exercise!
I find that trivial inconveniences become less powerful the more I go through the routine of overcoming them. For example, I delete apps and re-install them and am now used to the process so while it still helps it's become less of an inconvenience now that I'm acclimatized to the process. It seems good to try to reduce/get acclimated to trivial inconveniences that stop us from doing useful things and try to increase them for non-optimal things (and also beware starting a routine of getting used to them).
The mailbox thing is a really interesting ...
"Conceptual gerrymandering" is a very useful concept. Thanks for writing the post.
If I were Tom Clancy I hope that I would not have published Debt of Honor. I don't know whether terrorists were inspired by it, but at least for me it's pretty clearly in the "not worth the risk" category.
I get the argument but then I'm wondering where it stops? Don't direct A Clockwork Orange because there's a high likelihood that copycat murders will happen? Stop production on all things where someone might copy something harmful?
It seems implementing systems that prevent hijacking of planes is easier with how airports and plane travel work vs how much would need to change to stop vehicles being used in attacks. Seems similar to the debate over whether the Slaughterbots video and campaign to stop autonomous weapons will be successful. The supporters use nuclear weapons policy as the success story but it may not be the most useful comparison because nuclear weapons are much easier technology to restrict.
This reminds me of my favorite TV show Survivor. There are a number of reasons why it's great, but one aspect that is so fun to watch is seeing someone come up with a new strategy or tactic and then seeing how it immediately gets adopted in the later seasons. One of the most intellectual players, Yau-Man Chan, had the idea to create a fake immunity idol. Now it is standard to save pieces from things to try to make one. Russell Hantz started looking for hidden idols before clues to them were even found. That's become standard too and new strategies and counter-strategies keep being invented and you can see how fast memes take off in the show. From sanitation to eating Tide Pods, memes are powerful.
I hope Aubrey de Grey negotiated the moral trade with the mathematicians successfully, and now that he solved one of their most beloved problems, they will start working on solving aging.
Haha, this would be wonderful. Let's get Terence Tao on the aging problem!
I kind of like the lightweight obligation/excuse to repeat the meal which is incurred by having one person pay.
Mm, I see. I guess I don't find I need to incentivize friends to get together. And this norm would be for more casual and/or business meetings in which case I doubt people would be getting back together because they felt obliged to pay for the next meal.
The one off vs repeat interactions is a good point. I guess my dream scenario is to have this become a meme and in-turn a norm.
I think the worst co-diner's preference is usually to awkwardly ignore that the bill is there in which case I assume their preference is that we pay for their lunch. I suppose I can say "Would you like to Venmo us or pay cash?" or something like that if we don't think it's worth it offer to pay for their lunch.
Thanks for the reply! I don't mind letting people pay if they genuinely want to and our in a better position to. The problem is that in many instances there does seem to be a signaling game like there is in Chinese culture with refusing gifts at first, where just accepting without protesting is considered rude.
Thanks for the reply! Switching off for who pays is something I do and don't mind but it's only applied to friends who meet semi-regularly. The problem with business meetings, is that it's unlikely I'm going to be meeting them again in the future on any regular basis, if it all.
No flashing neon text? A bit disappointing but happy to see refreshing innovation from the rationality community...
For those that like this topic, the fiction book The First Fifteen Lives of Harry August is probably worth reading.
Thank you!
Thanks for writing this! I would love to hear more about this and if you have links in mind, would love to read them:
"As with lots of interpersonal concepts, this can also be useful internally: if you’re familiar with internal double crux / internal family systems / other “parts-work”, play around with the motion of having parts of yourself make themselves small (or big)."
I haven't tried it but it's a cool idea and I'm excited to see how it turns out! I might try it if I try to go back to learning Italian.