All of Severin T. Seehrich's Comments + Replies

Makes sense! My current emerging policy is to keep going out, but to avoid being in closed rooms for less than high ev interactions. Plus prioritizing applying to remote over in-person jobs.

Given the large leaps with which AGI and various other existential risks come closer, being extremely covid cautious seems not indicated though. Gotta see the world while it still stands.

A key piece of information I'm missing here is how well-myelinated orca brains are compared to human brains.

A quick Google search (1) suggests that "unmyelinated axon conduction velocities range from about 0.5 to 10 m/s, myelinated axons can conduct at velocities up to 150 m/s." This seems even more significant in orcas than in humans given their larger brain and body size.

2Bird Concept
"arguments" is perhaps a bit generous of a term...

Awesome, congratulations for the start of your networking journey!

Even though it can be really disheartening, remember that failure is an inevitable part of the journey. Remember the Edison quote: "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."

Yep, I'm currently finding the balance between adding enough examples to posts and being sufficiently un-perfectionistic that I post at all.

My current main criterion is something like "Do these people make me feel good, empowered, and give me a sense of community?" I expect that to change over time.

If a simple integer doesn't work for you, maybe split the two columns into several different categories? If you want to go fancy, weighted factor modelling might be a good tool for that.

2Celenduin
I think it was definitively good that you posted this in its current form, over not posting for want of perfectionism! As an example which works with integers too: The Decide 10 Rating System. This gives me a sense of the space that is covered by that scale, and it somehow works better for my brain. Weighted factor modelling sounds interesting and maybe useful, will look into that too. Thanks!

Feel free to adapt it however it makes sense for you. :)

It's all about the difference: If they are the same, leave everything as is. If "want" is higher than "is", make some intentional decisions to invest into that relationship more. If "want" is lower than "is", ask yourself wtf is going on there and how to change it.

I actually told the most hippie human on my list (spending months on rainbow gatherings-level hippie) that she's on it. To my surprise, she felt unambiguously flattered. Seems like the people who know me trust that I can be intentional without being objectifying. :)

Yea, but I don't remember claiming anywhere that I can cure anybody's depression, and don't really intend to ever do that...?

2Jiro
It's an illustrative example. Even if you don't believe that therapy can cure depression specifically, it's supposed to be able to cure things like it. The problem is your comparison of theraputic interventions to sending someone a cute video. The cute video is there to cure a short term, minor, issue. The therapy is there to cure a long term major, issue. These are different.

I did not recommend any particular intervention in my post. I just tried to explain some part of my understanding of how new psycho- and social technologies are generated, and what conclusions I draw from that.

If you expect most if not all established therapeutic interventions to not survive the replication crisis - what would you consider sufficient evidence for using or suggesting a certain intervention?

For example, a friend of mine felt blue today and I sent them a video of an animated dancing seal without extensively googling for meta-analyses on the e... (read more)

9Said Achmiz
First of all, even calling these things “[new] psycho- and social technologies” is already prejudicial. Please note: I do not mean that it’s merely prejudicial communicatively—a tendentious or misleading implication (though it is that)—I mean also, and perhaps more importantly, that it’s prejudicial to one’s own thinking. The right way to think of such things is “a weird thing someone decided to try doing”. And viewed this way, of course, there’s no particular reason to think that anything substantial (much less anything good) should come out of any given such thing. People decide to do weird things all the time, for all sorts of reasons! “This one weird thing that some dude decided to try doing turns out to solve a host of psychological problems” is, stated that way, very obviously a claim that requires a very large amount of evidence to update us to believing it to likely be true. That said, the question of “where do weird things that people decide to try doing come from” is not a particularly interesting question. The answer is “all sorts of places/causes, but ultimately who cares?”. Now, if you instead ask “consider weird things that people decide to try doing, that turn out to work—to be successful/effective—where do those things come from?”… well, that is an interesting question! Here we are, basically, asking “what is the process or processes that generate successful inventions or discovers?”. Of course, this is a question that’s been asked many times, and many words have been written in attempts to answer it. But, importantly, that latter question is hardly applicable to the sorts of things you describe in the OP—because those things don’t work. It’s a good question! But one too broad to answer in a comment thread. One relevant sort of consideration, however, would be ruling out alternative explanations for evidence, as described by E. T. Jaynes in his famous commentary on the “resurrection of dead hypotheses”. Many of the so-called therapies turn out t
4ChristianKl
I think the problem is that some techniques that are created that way work while others don't.  When using techniques we care about whether those we use work. I personally do think that updating on evidence is important and if your goal is technique creation then it matters.  I personally think that making something a "licensed technique" is often a way to create an environment where updating on evidence on how the technique can be improved gets harder but I completely agree with Said that updating on evidence is crucial. When it comes to sending your friend videos of animated seals, I would expect that for that to work well it's important that you understand your friend well enough to know that they appreciate getting videos of seals. Likely, you got positive feedback for it.  I don't think one should generalize from that technique to send everyone who feels blue seal videos. Before doing that it would be good to build a better model of when people are happy to get seal videos and when it annoys them. I would expect that the relationship to the seal video sender also matters.
3Jiro
I don't think sending them such a video counts as therapy, even if you're literally doing it to make someone feel better., because it's short term and minor, and you've probably tried a lot of short term, minor interventions in your life, enough to get an idea of what might work. And if you're wrong, the consequences would be minor. If someone had depression and you claimed you could cure the depression long term by sending them a cute video, I would indeed say you don't have enough evidence.

Agreed. But sitting around and sulking is a bummer, so I rather keep learning, exploring, and sometimes finding things that work for me.

0Said Achmiz
Sure, but the conclusion that any given approach you’ve found actually works must be arrived at in the usual way—by updating on evidence—and the prior probability is low. And such a favorable conclusion about the approaches you list in the OP is unwarranted. (Edited to add note) (Note: this is my third comment on this topic, and as such, any further comments will be delayed by the rate limit.) If you would like to see further responses, I believe there is some sort of setting which you can use to enable further comments from me.)

So, in other words - I am wrong, hippies are wrong, and most if not all therapies that look so far like they are backed by evidence are likely wrong, too.

Who or what do you suggest we turn to for fixing our stuff?

2Said Achmiz
Who said there has to be any solution? The universe makes us no such guarantee. The answer to your question could very well be “nobody can fix your stuff; suffer”. (Well, until the singularity, when godlike friendly AIs can rewrite our whole brains to eliminate flaws, or some such speculative thing. But that can be said of anything, and is irrelevant now; I mention it for completeness only—yes, there may not be any physical law that prevents any given problem from being solved, but that doesn’t mean that we can actually solve it.)

Yep, added a reference to survivorship bias to the text. Thanks.

Well, there goes that bit of overconfidence. Thanks.

Agreed - I added the 7th point to the list now to account for this.

Thanks for adding clarity! What does "support" mean, in this context? What's the key factors that prevent the probabilities from being >90%?

If the key bottleneck is someone to spearhead this as a full-time position and you'd willingly redirect existing capacity to advise/support them, I might be able to help find someone as well.

1OllieBase
oops, sorry, I don't check LW often! I use support to allow for a variety of outcomes - we might run it, we might fund someone to run it, we might fund someone and advise them etc. Buy-in from important stakeholders (safety research groups, our funders etc.). That is not confirmed. This isn't the key bottleneck, but thank you for this offer!

It's not the same thing; the link was broken because Slack links expire after a month. Fixed for now.

Flagged the broken link to the team. I found this, which may or may not be the same project: https://www.safeailondon.org/

1Severin T. Seehrich
It's not the same thing; the link was broken because Slack links expire after a month. Fixed for now.

I'm not in London, but aisafety.community (the afaik most comprehensive and way too unknown resource on AI safety communities) suggests the London AI Safety Hub. There are some remote alignment communities mentioned on aisafety.community as well. You might want to consider them as fallback options, but probably already know most if not all of them.

Let me know if that's at all helpful.

1Hoagy
Cheers Severin yeah that's useful, I've not seen aisafety.community (almost certainly my fault, I don't do enough to find out what's going on). That Slack link doesn't work for me though, it just asks me to sign into one of my existing workspaces..

That's one of the suggestions of the CanAIries Winter Getaway where I felt least qualified to pass judgment. I'm working on finding out about their deeper models so that I (or them) can get back to you.

I imagine that anyone who is in a good position to work on this has existing familial/other ties to the countries in debate though, and already knows where to start.

Yep, the field is sort of underfunded, especially after the FTX crash. That's why I suggested grantwriting as a potential career path.

In general, for newcomers to the field, I very strongly recommend booking a career coaching call with AI Safety Support. They have a policy of not turning anyone down, and quite a bit of experience in funneling newcomers at any stage of their career into the field. https://80000hours.org/ are also a worthwhile address, though they can't make the time to talk with everyone.

Hah, this makes a lot of sense. Thanks!

An addition to that: If we look through the goggles of Sara Ness' Relating Languages, the rationalist style of doing conversations is at the far end of the internal-focusing dialects Debater/Chronicler/Scientist. In my experience, more gooey communities have way more Banterer/Bard/Spaceholder-heavy types of interactions, which focus more on peoples' needs in the situation than on forming and communicating true beliefs. People don't necessarily know which dialects they speak themselves, because their way of interacting... (read more)

Thanks for the input!

It wasn't my intention to reinforce this dichotomy. Instead, I hoped to encourage people to name things that break the rationalist community's Overton window, so that others read them and think "Whoopsie, things like that can actually be said here?!" I suspect that way more people here picked up useful heuristics and models in their pre-rationalist days than realize it, because they overupdate on the way of the Sequences being the One True Way. I've learned in other communities that breaking taboos with questions like these is a useful... (read more)

5Kaj_Sotala
Is it really the case that such things are outside the Overton Window, though? We've had both well-received posts discussing how to incorporate goo-y stuff before [e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5] as well as various posts expressing things in pretty goo-y terms [e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. I don't think LW at least has any taboo against saying these kinds of things; writing in an unusual style might invite some extra scrutiny, but generally the posts will still be received well as long as they're reasonable and well-argued.
5Duncan Sabien (Deactivated)
I do agree that there's often a useful intermediate step for escaping the false dichotomy that's something like "do both A and ¬A." And then, once you have experiential data of each, you can see the ways that the A/¬A dichotomy was fake and not helpful. But also I worry about people seeing sentiments like the one immediately above, and doing a fallacy-of-the-gray thing, and thinking it means something like "precision doesn't matter." Precision (and similar stuff) does matter! It's just not the enemy of the-thing-being-called-goo.

This is a rallying flag: Respond/message me if you can imagine working on the Superconnecting project. Especially if you are based in Europe, but not exclusively then.

The larger part of Ithaka Berlin's expected impact comes from fulfilling this function. However, I'd also be super keen to help build non-co-living-versions of the Superconnecting project, whether as co-founder, advisor, or the person who connected the people who end up building the thing.

This is one of the points I'm less sure about because often enough, the rest of the message will implicitly answer it. In addition, what to include is highly dependent on context and who you are writing to.

Two very general recommendations:
- Something that helps the other person gauge how long the inferential distances between you two are, so that communication can be as quick as possible and as thorough as necessary.
- Something that helps them gauge your level of seniority. It's unfortunate but true that the time of people a couple levels of seniority abov... (read more)

Thanks for your comments! I corrected point 7 now.

Thanks, I didn't take into account that people might read this as an encouragement to randomly message people on Lesswrong. And thanks for giving me more clarity about the implicit norms here.

To clarify: The person likely found my mail address on my homepage, where it is exactly for the reason that I'm generally happy to be contacted by strangers.

4Dagon
Ah, that's important context.  Putting your contact info on your public website is an invitation to be contacted.  It's probably best to specify there (perhaps on a "contact me" page, which has your info AFTER this) under what conditions you'd like to connect.

Highly depends on your role and personality I guess.

As a community builder and someone pretty high on extraversion, I'm generally happy to add more people to my loose network. If there's just a bit of overlap between my and a stranger's interests, I expect there to be a far higher upside than downside risk to us knowing that the other exists and what they work on. Of course, I may change my opinion on this over time while my time becomes more valuable and my loose network larger.

Any generalizable rules you can think of about whom better not to cold message at all?

2Dagon
Yes.  Contact people you see posting on sites with a norm for individual contact on random topics (I don't know what those are, but I don't think it's LW).  Contact people whose profile description asks you to contact them.  Contact people if they post or comment that they'd like to be contacted. Judgement call to contact people you have a comment exchange with that you want to explore further (I'd argue this isn't "cold"). Otherwise, leave them alone. You can, of course, solicit contacts by setting up your profile and posting or shortform-ing that you'd like to be contacted.  That's way better than reaching out yourself to people you don't have any reason to believe want that.   Really, e-mail or DM on a site is ALMOST NEVER the right way to initiate "cold" contact.  That's what posts are for.

Paraphrasing is particularly useful for finding out whether you understood the other person correctly. For example, if a person says "I'm a cellular biologist.", you could paraphrase that as "You currently work in cellular biology. Right?"