Consider that it might actually be evidence for a different conclusion: Eliezer signed up for cryonics some years ago, when he had little income, bravely foregoing well-paid employment in favor of pursuing his core goals. (I can relate to that!) I would very much like to talk to E.Y. about whether it’s time to reconsider his past decision based on current information and current finances. I’m just an email or a phone call away, Eli...
Consider that it might actually be evidence for a different conclusion
I’d express it this way: by conservation of evidence, Eliezer signing up for CI is evidence for CI and against Alcor. Within the set of reasons/scenarios which lead to him signing up for CI, the observation about when Eliezer signed up is evidence for the ‘economizing’ explanation in which his signing up is not evidence for CI over Alcor.
(This may sound contradictory, but the important thing is that A as a set can be shrinking in total probability even as individual members of A become more likely.
An example of this would be the hope function: if you’re searching drawers one at a time for a letter, each time you search a drawer, you expect more strongly that the next drawer will hold the letter, even as you also expect more strongly that the letter is not in your desk at all.)
Because it was an excuse to bring in the hope function by way of correcting Max’s statistical reasoning, something I find really cool given how simple & obscure it is.
Someone did ask EY whether the fact that he signed up with CI whereas Hanson signed up with Alcor meant he disagreed with him about something important about the two institutes, and IIRC he answered it was just that Hanson was richer and older than him so of course he’d chosen the higher-end option. (I cannot find that comment, since even a search for Eliezer CI Hanson Alcor in the internal LW search engine turns up umpteen pages.)
Indeed, I’m young and not yet rich. If I was rich, though, given my prior state of knowledge I would’ve gone with SA + CI on the belief that CI seemed more long-run stable—CI seems more risk-averse and more financially prudent. I’ve updated somewhat on the financial prudence of Alcor as a result of reading these threads, and if the decision suddenly mattered for some reason, I would now require more investigation to figure out whether SA + CI or Alcor was the better long-run bet.
Depends what you mean by risk-averse. Alcor has an unquestionable history of fighting for its members’ wishes, rather than giving up on them at the mere hint of a legal battle. The only way in which CI could be said to be more financially prudent (but in a way with its own costs) is in its remarkable ability to hold down operating costs. I’m working hard on reducing our costs without undesirable penalties in terms of capabilities. I think we are also now at a point where further membership growth will yield significant economies of scale.
But take a look at both organizations’ financial statements. You will see that CI expects to maintain patients indefinitely—and revive them—on a small amount of per-patient funding. That takes some heroic and highly risky assumptions to accept. Alcor has carefully structured institutions and policies to manage sustainably for the long-term, including strict limits on what can be charged to the patient care trust fund, a 2% draw on the Endowment Fund, and an investment policy that has been giving us gains (while CI has been losing on its investments). If you continue to delve into the gory details, I think you may continue to update your views further.
Consider that it might actually be evidence for a different conclusion: Eliezer signed up for cryonics some years ago, when he had little income, bravely foregoing well-paid employment in favor of pursuing his core goals. (I can relate to that!) I would very much like to talk to E.Y. about whether it’s time to reconsider his past decision based on current information and current finances. I’m just an email or a phone call away, Eli...
I’d express it this way: by conservation of evidence, Eliezer signing up for CI is evidence for CI and against Alcor. Within the set of reasons/scenarios which lead to him signing up for CI, the observation about when Eliezer signed up is evidence for the ‘economizing’ explanation in which his signing up is not evidence for CI over Alcor.
(This may sound contradictory, but the important thing is that A as a set can be shrinking in total probability even as individual members of A become more likely.
An example of this would be the hope function: if you’re searching drawers one at a time for a letter, each time you search a drawer, you expect more strongly that the next drawer will hold the letter, even as you also expect more strongly that the letter is not in your desk at all.)
Umm, here’s a suggestion: WHY DON”T YOU JUST ASK ELIZER HOW AND WHY HE MADE THE DECISION? Why speculate?
Because it was an excuse to bring in the hope function by way of correcting Max’s statistical reasoning, something I find really cool given how simple & obscure it is.
This is precisely why I both love and hate Less Wrong.
Someone did ask EY whether the fact that he signed up with CI whereas Hanson signed up with Alcor meant he disagreed with him about something important about the two institutes, and IIRC he answered it was just that Hanson was richer and older than him so of course he’d chosen the higher-end option. (I cannot find that comment, since even a search for
Eliezer CI Hanson Alcorin the internal LW search engine turns up umpteen pages.)Indeed, I’m young and not yet rich. If I was rich, though, given my prior state of knowledge I would’ve gone with SA + CI on the belief that CI seemed more long-run stable—CI seems more risk-averse and more financially prudent. I’ve updated somewhat on the financial prudence of Alcor as a result of reading these threads, and if the decision suddenly mattered for some reason, I would now require more investigation to figure out whether SA + CI or Alcor was the better long-run bet.
Depends what you mean by risk-averse. Alcor has an unquestionable history of fighting for its members’ wishes, rather than giving up on them at the mere hint of a legal battle. The only way in which CI could be said to be more financially prudent (but in a way with its own costs) is in its remarkable ability to hold down operating costs. I’m working hard on reducing our costs without undesirable penalties in terms of capabilities. I think we are also now at a point where further membership growth will yield significant economies of scale.
But take a look at both organizations’ financial statements. You will see that CI expects to maintain patients indefinitely—and revive them—on a small amount of per-patient funding. That takes some heroic and highly risky assumptions to accept. Alcor has carefully structured institutions and policies to manage sustainably for the long-term, including strict limits on what can be charged to the patient care trust fund, a 2% draw on the Endowment Fund, and an investment policy that has been giving us gains (while CI has been losing on its investments). If you continue to delve into the gory details, I think you may continue to update your views further.
Yes, many (almost all) events are evidence for more than one hypothesis.