Amplification Discussion Notes

William_S

Let me try to reply here step by step. It was a cached thought in a sense of what I think you are saying, which is why I added it to my own shortform - I thought, as an idea, as it's hard for me to keep track of my ideas. What I meant was evil as an ideology, or as an entity in a way. We would have no idea what good was if there was no opposite end of the spectrum. Evil exists, and in that sense it helps to understand "what is good" ? Maybe I am not wording it correctly. If there were only good, how would you even know what was "good" or "evil" ? Do ... (read more)

2DirectedEvolution4y

There are a few clearly true statements that get compressed in your original statement, which can then be used to suggest wrong statements. This is an equivocation. One question is “does our experience of evil or suffering inform our moral judgments?” Another is “have people fought against evil and won?” A third is “can a lesser wrong be acceptable in pursuit of a greater good?” A fourth is something like “will our total human experience of evil and suffering prove so useful in aligning superintelligent AI that it is a net positive?” A fifth is “does even the most extreme, straightforward examples of evil and suffering have any side benefits, despite being heavily net negative?” Again, it’s fine to babble, but the culture here is that you need to clarify what question your asking. Then argue it persuasively to the best of your ability. Or try arguing the opposite, just to get clarity. Precision is a virtue. I can’t spend time to reply any more to introduce you to the site’s culture. But I think you might benefit from a philosophy class.

Are the social sciences challenging because of fundamental difficulties or because of imposed ones?

Khanivore4y60

I will elaborate on this later, but the social sciences have so so so many variables to consider. Our whole idea of social science is based on human social interaction and good luck understanding even the person next to you , or your partner let alone the other 7-8 billion people. Social science is hard. It's not as black and white as some other sciences are seemingly. It's a how could you possibly understand scenario...

4ozziegooen4y

Agreed that humans are complicated, but I still think there are a lot of reasons to suggest that we can get pretty far with relatively obtainable measures. We have the history of ~100 Billion people at this point to guide us. There are clear case studies of large groups being influenced in intentional predictable ways. Religious groups and wartime information efforts clearly worked. Marketing campaigns clearly seem to influence large numbers of people in relatively predictable ways. And much of that has been with what seems like relatively little scientific understanding at the scale that could be done with modern internet data. We don't need perfect models of individuals to be able to make big, deliberate changes.

When Money Is Abundant, Knowledge Is The Real Wealth

Khanivore4y00

Look at all the good Bill Gates does that I think is effective altruism and he gets vilified . It's a weird thing. I remember watching a patriot act episode https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS9CFBlLOcg

0DirectedEvolution4y

Welcome to LW, by the way :) You’re doing something (a good thing) that we call Babble. Freely coming up with ideas that all circle around a central question, without worrying too much about whether they’re silly, important, obvious, or any of the other reasons we hold stuff back. I’d suggest going further. Feel free to use this comment thread (or make a shortform) to throw out ideas about “why philanthropy might benefit from more (or less) cost/benefit analysis”. We often suggest trying to come up with 50 ideas all in one go. Have at it!

When Money Is Abundant, Knowledge Is The Real Wealth

Khanivore4y10

I imagine most good deeds or true altruism takes place on non-measurable scales. It's the thought that counts right? A smile goes a long way, how can you measure a smile, or positive energy. Whether you throw a dart or follow a non dart follow method, maybe the positive energy put out means something, especially now.

Khanivore4y*-30

LOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUMLOREM IPSUM

7DirectedEvolution4y

Hi Khanivore. You are new, and also you are welcome to post anything here. One thing you'll find is that people will engage with and appreciate/criticize your posts. I don't want to alienate you by criticizing too harshly or too soon, because I think this community has a lot to offer for everyone, and I'm interested to see what you'll make of it. However, you may find this site more interesting if you get some engagement, so I'm offering that. Your post is a good example of cached thoughts. One thing that seems evil is the starvation, neglect, abuse, torture, murder, and conscription into armies of children. One thing that seems good is the self-actualization of children. I am a teacher of children, and I have tried for ten years to help them self-actualize. I don't think that evil perpetrated on children is necessary for the good of children. One thing you can do is argue with me and make a genuine attempt to persuade. Another is to steelman the counterargument. What's the strongest argument you can make that evil isn't necessary for good to exist? Can you convince yourself of the contrary, just for the sake of your own edification. There are other things you can do, but those are a couple suggestions that you might find valuable.

When Money Is Abundant, Knowledge Is The Real Wealth

Khanivore4y10

Would philanthropy be better off it people just threw darts, or if they stuck to tried and true ways of giving? Is not even taking a gamble on a possible great outcome for the overall good a form of genuine altruism?

8DirectedEvolution4y

Well, if you’re a subscriber to mainstream EA, the idea is that neither traditionalism nor dart-throwing is best. We need a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. If one believes that, yet also that less cost-benefit analysis is needed (or tractable) in science, that needs an explanation. Again, I think that this post is getting at something important, but the definitions here aren’t precise enough to make it easy to apply to real issues. Like, can a billionaire use his money to buy a cost/benefit analysis of an investment of interest? Definitely. But how can he evaluate it? Does he have to do it himself? Does he focus on creating an incentive structure for the people producing it? If so, what about Goodhart’s Law - how will he evaluate the incentive structure? It’s “who will watch the watchmen” all the way down, but that’s a pretty defeatist perspective. My guess is that institutions do best when they adopt a variety of metrics and evaluative methods to make decisions, possibly including some randomization just to keep things spicy.

Rafael Harth's Shortform

Khanivore4y30

I just posted about this but is that not why the serenity prayer or saying is so popular? GOD aside whether you are a religious or God person or not the sentiment or logic of the saying holds true - God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference. You should be allowed to ask yourself for that same courage. And I agree that most sources of unhappiness seems to be a violation of expectations. There are many things outside of ones controls and one should perhaps make their expectations logically based on that fact.

Khanivore4y20

The gap in human intelligence and rational/critical thinking seems to be ever widening. Politics aside I find it interesting the drastic differences in human cognitive behavior. I wonder if compared to other animals that we consider intelligent if the spectrum is so large?

Viliam's Shortform

Khanivore4y10

In reality it has to be a mixture right? So many parts of my day are absolutely in my control, at least small things for sure. Then there are obviously a ton of things that are 100% out of my control. I guess the goal is to figure out how to navigate the two and find some sort of serenity. After all isn't that the old saying about serenity? I often think about what you have said as an addict. I personally don't believe addiction to be a disease, my DOC is alcohol, and I don't buy into the disease model of addiction. I think it is a choice and maybe a disor... (read more)

2Viliam4y

Yeah, this is usually the right answer. Which of course invites additional questions, like which part is which... With addiction, I also think it is a mixture of things. For example, trivially, no one would abuse X if X were literally impossible to buy, duh. But even before "impossible", there is a question of "how convenient". If they sell alcohol in the same shop you visit every day to buy fresh bread, it is more tempting than if you had to visit a different shop, simply because you get reminded regularly about the possibility. For me, it is sweet things. I eat tons of sugar, despite knowing it's not good for my health. But fuck, I walk around that stuff every time I go shopping, and even if I previously didn't think about it, now I do. And then... well, I am often pretty low on willpower. I wish I had some kind of augmented reality glasses which would simply censor the things in the shop I decide I want to live without. Like I would see the bread, butter, white yoghurt, and some shapeless black blobs between that. Would be so easier. (Kind of like an ad-blocker for offline world. This may become popular in the future.) Another thing that contributes to addiction is frustration and boredom. If I am busy doing something interesting, I forget the rest of the world, including my bad habits. But if the day sucks, the need to get "at least something pleasant, now" becomes much stronger. Then it is about how my home is arranged and what habits I create. Things that are "under my control in long term", like you don't build the good habit overnight, but you can start building it today. For example, with a former girlfriend I had a deal that there is one cabinet that I will never open, and she needs to keep all her sweets there; never leave them exposed on the table, so that I would not be tempted.

Khanivore4y10

I believe that a lot of what you have said is accurate but does not discount the original post. If realistically looked at, it is still a truth that money does buy more opportunities to find happiness. Whether its giving to others, or the ability to have more free time, etc. It does not mean you will find personal happiness. Nor does it mean that every person needs the $ at all. Over all its a mindset I guess, but if money was not an issue at all, and nobody knew about your wealth at all for instance wouldn't half your concerns disappear? What if nobody was aware of your wealth?

3Viliam4y

Sure, I would prefer to deal with problems of having too much money, rather than not having enough money. At least, with too much money you can hire people to help you, and you have enough free time to focus on the problems. I don't think there is a reliable way to keep wealth secret. If it is legally obtained, you need to declare it in your tax form... and I don't trust the government's ability to keep secrets. You buy something expensive, people may notice. Heck, you stop having a daily job, people may notice. But there could be a sweet spot somewhere between "being an average person" and "being so rich that criminals start paying attention". It also depends on what lifestyle you want. I suppose that rich people have all kinds of activities where they signal their wealth to each other, and maintain social contact with each other -- you cannot do this and keep your wealth secret at the same time. However, you could go for something like "middle class, except with extra options, and all inconvenience removed". Probably a good way to achieve it would be to create a shell company... and get employed by it. Which would make you your own boss, except no outsider would know. You do whatever you want, whenever you want, and if people ask you about your job, you have a boring answer. If you need to spend big money, officially the company pays it, not you. You could even keep the secret from your friends and your partners (because they sometimes become ex-friends and ex-partners). Sounds like I have a plan, now all I need is the money. :D

Notes on Compassion

Khanivore4y20

We're all in the same game, just different levels. Dealing with the same hell, just different devils.

Khanivore4y*30

2Viliam4y

There are no guaranteed ways to achieve happiness. If you believe incorrectly that X will make you happy, you may spend time and energy pursuing X only to find out it didn't work. But even then, if you achieve your X's faster, you get more attempts. Advantages of money: Less time and energy spent paying your bills, which means more time and energy available to do X. If you need to buy something, you can. If you need other people's help, you can pay them to help you. Disadvantages of money: You attract all kinds of people who want to extract money from you: fake friends, scammers, extortionists. (In theory, this is only a problem when other people know you have money. In practice, I suspect there are fake friends / scammers / extortionists who specialize on finding rich people who try to be inconspicuous, so you never know.) You need lawyers and bodyguards to deflect occassional attacks; certain things are more dangerous for you than for average people. You generally can't trust people and their feedback, which is a problem when you need to actually learn something.

LESSWRONG
LW

All of Khanivore's Comments + Replies