All of mikbp's Comments + Replies

? 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.

Is China doing well in the EV space a bad thing?

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.

Oh, it is probably my mistake XD I'm also not native. I meant increase, not that it is the maximum it could be, sorry.

About Tesla, do you think it had any influence on China betting hard for EVs?

About SpaceX, do you think it makes a big difference to be 'space-ready' a couple of decades earlier or later?

2Dave Orr
Are we playing the question game because the thread was started by Rosencranz? Is China doing well in the EV space a bad thing?

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... (read more)

2tailcalled
I'm not really suggesting something as convoluted as Hitler killing someone much worse than him. More like, maybe Elon Musk started supporting Republicans because he learned something very bad about Democrats and maybe eventually he's going to realize Republicans have something very bad too and then maybe he does a project that solves both bad things at once.   This seems to require working tightly enough with Republicans for long enough to understand why they are so bad, so it could be compared to Elon Musk working on EVs to understand how to scale up EV production.

Sure, but one can assess it at any point. I'm not asking about whether he will end up being net-positive or net-negative overall in the long run.

2tailcalled
What does it mean to assess it at any point, as distinct from in the long run? And was he really ever good for humanity if assessed through your one-point method? (E.g. climate impacts seems intrinsically a long-run thing...)

I'd agree. But he certainly does not seem to even be trying anymore to have positive impact on solving alignment, no?

Hi, thanks.

I don't see how what you say contradicts that the reach of his actions and opinions have increased. Did you maybe quote the wrong sentence?

1exmateriae
I thought you said he was very close to the maximum he could do? English is a second language so maybe I misunderstood something. Also, only my first paragraph is really related to the quote, the rest is more of a free flow of what I think

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.

Thanks. So would you say I am right with the concern about the paper? Or is it fog only for other reasons? [I haven't yet read the link, so I don't yet know what exactly fog in this context means]

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.

2silentbob
Good point. I guess one could come up with examples that have less of this inefficiency but still are "computationally unkind". Although in the end, there's probably some correlation between these concepts anyway. So thanks for adding that. 👌

In what toddler age span has this worked for your children?

3jefftk
I didn't write it down, so don't trust this much, but something like 2-3.5?

ok. We take our son anyway out of the bet as soon as he wakes up. He sleeps long enough already by himself.

3jefftk
In our case I'm not worried about when they wake up in the morning, but about going to sleep, especially at naptime. A crib is boring and conducive to sleep, but there are a lot of interesting things to play with around the room.

at that point you should just move to something optimized for being easy to get in and out of, like a bed

 

yes, yes. Exactly. Isn't it much more practical to put her in a bet/mattress on the floor? That's what we do. Just using the mattress from the crib, for example.

2jefftk
The reason I want to stick with a crib over a bed or floor mattress (and I assume the reason most people use cribs) is that it keeps them in their bed during the time they're supposed to be sleeping.

Why must she not be able to climb out(/in) of the crib for napping there?

3jefftk
Climbing out of the crib is mildly dangerous, since it's farther down on the outside than the inside. So it's good practice to switch a way from a crib (or adjust the crib to be taller) once they get to where they'll be able to do that soon. Even if they can do it safely, though, a crib they can get in and out of on their own defeats the purpose of a crib -- at that point you should just move to something optimized for being easy to get in and out of, like a bed.

Very interesting!

Obvious question: who wins when the debate is ultra BS Vs ultra BS? Is then the duel back to a rhetoric one?

2Lyrongolem
Glad you enjoyed! So, I know this sounds like a bit of a cop out, but hear me out. The better debater usually wins the debate, irrespective of techniques.  There's a lot that goes into a debate. There's how well you synergize with your partner, how confident you sound, how much research you've prepared, how strong of a writer you are... etc. There are times where a good constructive speech can end the debate before your opponent even starts talking, and other times where adamant refusal to accept the facts can convince the judge you're right. There's also sheer dumb luck. (Did the judge pay attention?) I think of it as a lot like poker, in that regard. Ultra-BS is one of many techniques you'd use, like a poker face. It's not a silver bullet or a free win though (as powerful as it is). Some of our rounds were very close.  If two people both have a poker face, who wins?  Well... I can't say for sure, but I'd conclude neither side has an advantage over the other. (unless, of course, one person knows the technique better!) 

I'd be really interested in how the kids do in school and in general in their future. It seems to me that they may get really bored, at least at some classes, and this can backfire --it often happens with gifted kids.

Now it is illegal in some places and not recommended in others -> social & cívic pressure against. Plus the increase in usefulness for the cars.

Context: in urban environment + slow roads/streets in general.

Also, are you using the term “zebra crossing” in an unusual way…? It seems like you are

??

That would reduce the usefulness of the road for pedestrians to zero

On the contrary, they could cross anywhere without needing to walk to the zebra crossing! That would increase the road's usefulness for them.

0Said Achmiz
But pedestrians can do that already, so your proposed change would not change this; thus there could be no increase.

These were not rhetorical questions, I would like to see your opinion on yield signs and their difference with zebra crossings.

-1Said Achmiz
Yield signs in what context? (Also, are you using the term “zebra crossing” in an unusual way…? It seems like you are…)

It's an hyperbole, of course —to keep the usefulness of the road, if it is less dangerous that people just cross in random places than that cars stop before zebra crossings, let's get rid of the crossings.

0Said Achmiz
That would reduce the usefulness of the road for pedestrians to zero, which for most roads is too low. In any case, your antecedent clause there is a mischaracterization of the discussion so far.

It is clear that cars not being forced to stop before zebra crossings is more unsafe.

Then let's just get rid of zebra crossings all together. But I highly suspect that this would not be a good solution (eg. in Europe I have never seen a stop sign for a zebra crossing).

2Said Achmiz
I don’t see how this follows…?

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.

2Said Achmiz
The incentive to break the rules and cross unsafely already exists. One part of my proposal (space crossings further apart) strengthens that incentive. Another part of my proposal (stop signs or traffic lights at each crossing) makes it safer to cross in accordance with the rules. The reason for the former part is to preserve the usefulness of the roadway for drivers (which would otherwise be reduced by the increase in its safety), while the reason for the latter part is to increase the safety of the roadway for pedestrians. On net, the roadway becomes safer but less useful for pedestrians, while remaining as useful as previously for drivers. (There is also a matter of safety for drivers, but not a significant one.) It is clear that cars not being forced to stop before zebra crossings is more unsafe. If crossing in random places is dangerous and sanctioned crossings are less frequent, that does not mean that the road is less safe, only that it is less useful. Safety is to be evaluated on the basis of two things: (a) how safe it is to behave in the approved way, and (b) how easy it is to behave in the approved way and avoid behaving in the un-approved way, should one have a general intention to do so. Mere incentives to behave in the un-approved way are not properly understood to be components of safety, only of usefulness.

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.

2Said Achmiz
Let us be precise: not “people are going to”, but “some additional people on the margin are going to” (cross at a point without a designated pedestrian crossing). Some people do so already (no matter how closely spaced the crossings), and some people will continue to not do so (even if you space the crossings further apart). This is perfectly normal and expected. People have free will, and if they decide to break the rules, that’s their choice. We may, of course, determine that some threshold amount of rule-breaking indicates that the rule is bad—but the mere fact that some people are breaking the rules, is not sufficient to establish this. (This is especially true given that the new setup will be more safe than the old one.) This has nothing to do with the theory/practice distinction.

So, basically forcing people to cross unsafely (and potentially illegally) is the best design choice?

2Said Achmiz
Nobody’s forcing anyone to do anything. You can walk down to the next crossing. Or, not. This is always true, no matter how many crossings there are.[1] ---------------------------------------- 1. Unless the crossings are literally abutting one another, i.e. the whole road is one giant pedestrian crossing, i.e. there is no road. ↩︎

Less accurate, not less predictable ;-)

What is the difference with the yield sign? Or are you also against the yield sign?

1mikbp
These were not rhetorical questions, I would like to see your opinion on yield signs and their difference with zebra crossings.

Then only busy places should have zebra crossings?

0Said Achmiz
Less busy places should have pedestrian crossings less frequently.

Why is driving slow less predictable than stopping? 

A zebra crossing is similar to a Yield sign, just giving way to pedestrians instead of other cars.

2Said Achmiz
Because “slow” could be any of a range of speeds, while “stop” is always a speed of 0 mph; and, also, because it’s unknown whether the slow-moving car will stop, but it is known whether the stopped car is stopped.

This sounds pretty good. 

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... (read more)

3jefftk
A lot of places near us (Boston) have installed lights at crossings that are normally off, but go on immediately when a pedestrian pushes a button. They're pretty good!
2Said Achmiz
Because it makes driver behavior vastly less predictable, and it makes it much harder for the driver to behave predictably. Driving predictably is the most important way to minimize accidents. (“one is supposed to drive carefully when approaching a zebra crossing” is exactly the kind of bad “rule” which is impossible to consistently execute in practice.) ETA: If this is the case, then it’s a sign that either you’re trying to drive much too fast, or that there are entirely too many pedestrian crossings. The appropriate design correction here is to reduce the number of designated pedestrian crossing points until it’s not unduly burdensome to stop at each, then force a stop at each.

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... (read more)

0Said Achmiz
This seems (based on what I’ve been given to understand about how zebra crossings work in Germany) like a consequence of extremely bad roadway signage and associated rules of the road. A designated pedestrian crossing without an associated stop sign or traffic light is just very, very bad design. (We do not have such things in the U.S., to my knowledge.)

Oh, in the US this is dangerous, isn't it? (I mean, legally)

3jefftk
Sort of, but it depends where you live. Younger kids walking to school is unusual at this point, but it used to be super prevalent, and where we live there are still crossing guards. There are cases where I'm worried that the local authorities (the Department of Children and Families, DCF) would see things differently and we could get in trouble, but this isn't really one of them?

This is probably very location sensitive, are you both in the UK?

2Alicorn
Nope, Bay Area.
2jefftk
We're both in the US, though different cities (I'm in Boston)
3the gears to ascension
His research just keeps getting wilder. It's so wild I've begun to really wonder how much he's going to turn out to be right about, but his hypotheses and evidence for them are really quite something.

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 ... (read more)

2Brendan Long
That's a good point. At least in the modern world the childcare aspect of school is an economic benefit for parents. It's worth pointing out that raising younger children was one of the useful jobs older children have historically done. I think this source answers your questions better than I've been able to: https://eh.net/encyclopedia/child-labor-in-the-united-states/ The article is about historical child labor in the 1800's, and finds that children cost more than they produced, but they were able to do useful farm work past the age of 7. It's unclear to me what the breakdown here is but children "age 15 and under" were a large portion of the manufacturing workforce.

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... (read more)

2Brendan Long
I was just trying to respond to the original question. Being required to send kids to school raises the cost of kids because you can't have them do work during that time. Legal limits on working ages do the same thing, although officially-working isn't the only open (consider chores and family businesses). Other reasons school increases the cost of having kids is that parents may need to use their own time to transport kids to school and back, and to help with school work; and they may need to pay for school supplies. Whether you think this is worth it depends on if you think the value kids get from going to school exceeds the costs of fewer people having kids / the costs to parents. My understanding is that Zvi thinks the value of school to kids is negative, but if you disagree then it wouldn't be surprising if you disagree on this cost/benefit tradeoff.

I'm so confused how 2 weeks after the post nobody has mentioned that this increases a lot (plastic) waste generation. This is an obvious con!

mikbpΩ2811

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... (read more)

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... (read more)

5Davidmanheim
Thanks, agreed. And as an aside, I don't think it's entirely coincidental that neither of the people who agree with you are in the Bay.

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?

3JBlack
To the best of my knowledge yes, though I am not an alignment researcher and there may be some proposals that could in fact work, and there are definitely some that will be obscure enough that the only people who know about them also believe they will work. As far as I know, there aren't any proposals that are generally believed to work. The field is far too young for that. We don't yet even have a good handle on what the problems will be in practice, which sort of goes with the territory when we need to consider the behaviours of things far smarter than ourselves.

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.

2Brendan Long
I think he's arguing that if kids aren't in school they could be doing something productive (working, chores, family business). I don't think anything this article talks about is meaningfully different in Europe?

It is not easy to store it for longer time, but that's one of the uses of hydrogen (for energy).

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.

That's a nice example. I heard about it long ago with investments instead of games. It is really something important to keep in mind!

Load More