Sure, we don't know exactly how good EVs are for fighting climate change, but the current view is that they are needed in the context in which we are because they seem better mostly than the other alternatives. [Incidentally, since some time I tend to think that he's probably been vastly less net-good in the past than I previously thought. Not really because of him, but because Chinese companies are beating everyone, including Tesla, with their EVs (and I don't think he's had any influence in China betting hard for EVs, though I might be wrong here); so if...
For me the conversation in the example sounds artificial, it is obvious that the friend did not get what you mean. If I'd had such conversation, I'd have added something like: "If I go, sure I can pick you up. But I'm not sure when I'll go" (or "I'm not sure if I'd go at all or at what time" if you really are not sure)
I am but puzzle about how your post could wreck someone
when someone does not have the capabilities to face those fears. Even just meditating is dangerous for some people because it makes them face something they are not equipped to face. In order to learn, one must face challenges with the right level of difficulty for them at that point in time. Too easy and there's no learning; too difficult and it is a wall instead of a challenge. If the challenges are psychological or similar, this wall may be something that hurts, only hurts, with no -or minimal- gains.
I liked the term Computational Kindness a lot! Thanks.
BTW, in the example you give for it and analogous situations it is, in addition, totally inefficient: you know your environment, what is worth visiting/doing and so on, so it is relatively easy to pick the day's program. The visitor, who doesn't know this environment will have a much harder time finding it out. So, it not only "offloads all the effort of coming up with ideas and making decisions to the other person", it greatly increases this effort. I think it is important to note this as well.
if they decide to break the rules, that’s their choice
The point is that your proposal incentivises people to break the rules and cross unsafely; which is the opposite of what the proposal intends.
On the other hand, having zebra crossing more often incentivises people to use them.
The appropriate question here is what is more unsafe? 1) significant amounts of people crossing in random places, or 2) cars not being forced to stop before zebra crossings.
For me, in normal conditions 1) is clearly more unsafe, as car drivers must be paying attention to the traffic anyway. And I'd guess that this is the actual case, otherwise zebra crossings would not have been adopted.
It is not literally forcing anyone but it is effectively forcing everyone. Or don't call it forcing if you want, but it is what people are going to do.
Note that moving a zebra crossing just 200 m means having to walk 400 m more, so 5 minutes walking. For people with reduced mobility it is much longer. [edited to add the ending 'd' in reduced]
Good design is not about the theory it is about what happens in practice. Search for, for example, the design failure of Brasilia. Super well designed on plan, a failure in practice. Something similar is repeated once and again.
A designated pedestrian crossing without an associated stop sign or traffic light is just very, very bad design.
Why should this be bad design? I find it would be even more stupid to have to stop all the time (stop sign) or when the light is read but no one wants to cross. The traffic lights with a button for pedestrians are useful in some circumstances, but in many they are even more stupid (eg. often the pedestrian would have been able to cross without a problem but is forced to press the button, wait that the traffic light changes and cross, and th...
I live in Germany and I do something similar... but it has to be always. If you are close to a zebra crossing most cars will stop to let you cross even if you haven't made any intent to cross, so you have to do all kinds of theatre to make it clear that you are not going to cross (in that moment).
But the other day I understood why they do it (I almost never drive). I was driving approaching a zebra crossing an a guy who was walking in the same direction but through the sidewalk just turned 90º and continued walking when he reached the zebra crossing. He di...
Nobody is saying that not sending kids to school could be not-net-negative economically in some specific cases (eg. when someone is anyway at home not doing much, maybe in farms still nowadays?). Such cases represent a tiny minority of current population, at lest in Europe (and in all rich countries). And, even for these small percentage of cases, not being net negative economically is still far away from dramatically raising the economic cost of raising these kids (even if tuition is zero).
But it is obvious that if they don't go to school someone has to take care of them, and this is much more expensive. One cannot leave a kid alone at home (regardless if he is tasked to do chores or not) until (s)he is quite grown. That would be pretty crazy (and probably illegal). And having kids working on a family business or similar, it is costly as well: you cannot work half as well, they don't work well either or fast.
The fact that Zvi thinks the value of school to kids is negative is irrelevant here, as what I quoted strictly refers to economic cost ...
Sorry, I haven't noticed your reply.
I think he's arguing that if kids aren't in school they could be doing something productive (working, chores, family business).
Well, this is assuming that education is not productive. Even if its only use were signalling, it is useful. But if children don't go to school, they cannot work legally until 14y, at least in Europe. Which means that there has to be someone taking care of them, which is the opposite of cheap.
I don't think anything this article talks about is meaningfully different in Europe?
I don't remember anym...
I think that the tradeoff in terms of getting feedback and providing something for others to build on, especially others outside of the narrow EA-motivated community, is often worthwhile.
This should be obvious for everyone! As an outside observer and huge sympathizer, it is super-frustrating how siloed the broad EA/rational/AI-alignment/adjacent community is --this specific issue with publication is only one of the consequences. Many of "you people" only interacting between "yourselves" (and I'm not referring to you, Davids), very often even socially...
I hope you don't mind if I pop in here. I've been following this conversation with considerable interest. I too am an outsider. I've been peeking in every now and then for years, but started posting here almost a year ago, more or less, to test the waters. Anyhow, you say:
This should be obvious for everyone! As an outside observer and huge sympathizer, it is super-frustrating how siloed the broad EA/rational/AI-alignment/adjacent community is --this specific issue with publication is only one of the consequences.
Yes! And as you go on to say, it works in bo...
Oh, thank you! I thought that what doesn't exist was a list of initial conditions that we could already work on. I didn't expect that there is nothing at all, even far fetched. So, if I understand it correctly, for all the proposals so far developed, there have been someone suggesting a credible way an AGI could doge them. Do I understand it correctly?
Along with everything else it does, school dramatically raises the economic cost of raising kids even if tuition is zero.
I really don't get this, can anyone explain it?
In general, after reading this post, I feel very happy to have been raised in Europe.
I only skimmed it as well as an article. I think it is quite likely that someone here has been very curios about this is a topic and would be happy to write about it. It is just a question, so why not asking? I am not forcing anyone to answer it or even to read the question (and I have willingly make it short).
Imagine if you had always been like this, not only during the last time. There is a large problem where people who feel like this are in a huge competitive disadvantage (or end up "corrupted"). And these people tend to be the most ethical ones. It is really not surprising that people tend to get less ethical as one looks at higher status jobs/positions.
? I don't know Rosencranz.
I'm asking you because you say "Is it the case that the tech would exist without him? I think that's pretty unclear" and this, in my view, depends a lot on the answers to those questions.
The opposite, it is good. But if Musk did not have any influence on it, this diminishes Musk's positive impact in this field, making his impact less positive.