Is A3 meant to have connecting links horizontal through it’s path?
Another bad idea: build a simulation-world to live in so that we don’t actually have to worry about real-world risks. (disadvantage—is possibly an X-risk itself)
It kinda depends on which x-risk you are trying to cover...
For example—funding technologies that improve the safety or efficiency of nuclear use might mean that any use is a lot more harmless. Or develop ways to clean up nuclear mess; or mitigate the decay of nuclear radiation (i.e. a way to gather nuclear radioactive dust)
Encouraging people to start small bio-hack groups around the world could improve the biotechnology understanding of the public to the point where no one accidentally creates a bio-technology hazard. Developing better guidance on safe biotechnology processes and exactly why its safe this way and not otherwise… effectively “raising the sanity waterline” but specific to the area of biotechnology risks.
(I suggest that maybe you want to offer to take free suggestions before you pay people—at least that might save you some dollars)
Encouraging people to start small bio-hack groups around the world could improve the biotechnology understanding of the public to the point where no one accidentally creates a bio-technology hazard.
I’m all for biohazard awareness groups, and even most forms of BioHacking at local HackerSpaces or wherever else. However, I never want to see potentially dangerous forms of BioTech become decentralized. Centralized sources are easy to monitor and control. If anyone can potentially make an engineered pandemic in their garage, then no amount of education will be enough for sufficient safety margin. Think of how many people people cut fingers off in home table saws or lawnmowers or whatever. DIY is a great way to learn through trial and error, but not so great where errors have serious consequences.
The “economic activation energy” for both malicious rogue groups and accidental catastrophes is just too low, and Murphy’s law takes over. However if the economic activation energy is a million dollars of general purpose bio lab equipment, that’s much safer, but would require heavy regulation on the national level. Currently it’s something like a billion dollars of dedicated bio warfare effort, and has to be regulated on the international level. (by the Geneva Protocol and the Biological Warfare Convention)
(I suggest that maybe you want to offer to take free suggestions before you pay people—at least that might save you some dollars)
I’d agree with you here. Although money is a fantastic motivator for repetitive tasks, it has the opposite effect on coming up with insightful ideas.
(I suggest that maybe you want to offer to take free suggestions before you pay people—at least that might save you some dollars)
I was really saying—save your money till after people shoot off some low-hanging fruit ideas.
I would argue that the current barrier of “it costs lots of money to do bio-hacking right” is a terrible one to hide behind because of how easy it is to overcome it; or do biohacking less-right and less-safely. i.e. without safe containment areas.
Perhaps funding things like clean-rooms with negative pressure and leaving the rest up to whoever is using the lab-space.
I like all 3 ideas—simulation, nuclear waste reduction and bio-hack awareness groups. I would like to include them in the map and award you 150 usd. How can I pay you?
Simulation is an X-Risk that we stagnate our universal drive to growth and live in a simulation for the rest of our lives and extinguish ourselves from existence.
Bio-Hack is an X-Risk because if done wrong you would encourage all these small bio-tech interests and end up with someone doing it unsafely.
The failure of mini biohack groups could probably be classified as controlled regression->small catastrophy. Similar to the small nuclear catastrophies of current history and their ability to discourage any future risk taking behaviour in the area.
The advantage of common bio-hack groups is less reliance on the existing big businesses to save us with vaccines etc.
Indeed the suggestion of “Invite the full population to contribute to solving the problem” might be a better description.
New suggestion: “lower the barriers of entry into the field of assistance in X-risk”. Easy explanation of the X-risks; easier availability of resources to attempt solutions. Assuming your main x-risks are 1. biotech; 2. nanotech; 3. nuclear, 4. climate change and 5. UFAI)
Provide Biotech upskill (education, some kind of OpenBio foundation) and Bioresources for anyone interested in the area (starter kit, smaller cheaper lab-on-a-chip, simple biotech “at-home” experiments like GFP insertion).
Teach the risks of molecular manufacturing before teaching people how to do it. (or restructure the education program to make sure it is included)
Teach 4th gen nuclear technologies to everyone. Implement small scale nuclear models. (i.e. tiny scale—not sure if it would work) to help people understand the possibility of a teeny nuclear failure but scaled up to large. (if it is possible to make a tiny scale nuclear reactor is beyond my knowledge)
empower the public with technology or understanding to reverse pollution. i.e. solar + batteries + electric cars; plant-trees initiatives (or oxygen bio-filters), carbon capture programs, educate and make possible small-scale sustainability (or close to it). Teach people 3D printing; Maker (fixer) mindset; reuse/upcycle; Reward disposable packaging more than non-disposable.
UFAI free education in the area, starter packages in programming. (I have no idea other than it seems to be being worked on by smart people)
New suggestion: Teach x-risk from 5 years old upwards. So that the next generation of humans understand that when they play with these kinds of powerful forces—they risk a whole lot more than they realise. (hopefully before having an x-risky accident to explicitly warn people about things)
New idea—I don’t think you covered: lock down all risk areas beneath piles of bureaucracy, paperwork, safety requirements and bullshit. No one gets to work on nuclear, no one gets to work on biotech without ridiculous safety standards, no one gets to create pollution without being arrested and charged, no one gets to code learning machines without strict supervision.
Is A3 meant to have connecting links horizontal through it’s path?
Another bad idea: build a simulation-world to live in so that we don’t actually have to worry about real-world risks. (disadvantage—is possibly an X-risk itself)
It kinda depends on which x-risk you are trying to cover...
For example—funding technologies that improve the safety or efficiency of nuclear use might mean that any use is a lot more harmless. Or develop ways to clean up nuclear mess; or mitigate the decay of nuclear radiation (i.e. a way to gather nuclear radioactive dust)
Encouraging people to start small bio-hack groups around the world could improve the biotechnology understanding of the public to the point where no one accidentally creates a bio-technology hazard. Developing better guidance on safe biotechnology processes and exactly why its safe this way and not otherwise… effectively “raising the sanity waterline” but specific to the area of biotechnology risks.
(I suggest that maybe you want to offer to take free suggestions before you pay people—at least that might save you some dollars)
I’m all for biohazard awareness groups, and even most forms of BioHacking at local HackerSpaces or wherever else. However, I never want to see potentially dangerous forms of BioTech become decentralized. Centralized sources are easy to monitor and control. If anyone can potentially make an engineered pandemic in their garage, then no amount of education will be enough for sufficient safety margin. Think of how many people people cut fingers off in home table saws or lawnmowers or whatever. DIY is a great way to learn through trial and error, but not so great where errors have serious consequences.
The “economic activation energy” for both malicious rogue groups and accidental catastrophes is just too low, and Murphy’s law takes over. However if the economic activation energy is a million dollars of general purpose bio lab equipment, that’s much safer, but would require heavy regulation on the national level. Currently it’s something like a billion dollars of dedicated bio warfare effort, and has to be regulated on the international level. (by the Geneva Protocol and the Biological Warfare Convention)
I’d agree with you here. Although money is a fantastic motivator for repetitive tasks, it has the opposite effect on coming up with insightful ideas.
I was really saying—save your money till after people shoot off some low-hanging fruit ideas.
I would argue that the current barrier of “it costs lots of money to do bio-hacking right” is a terrible one to hide behind because of how easy it is to overcome it; or do biohacking less-right and less-safely. i.e. without safe containment areas.
Perhaps funding things like clean-rooms with negative pressure and leaving the rest up to whoever is using the lab-space.
In A3 blocks are not connected because they not consequent steps, but more like themes or ideas.
Okay. Maybe bolden up the outlines or change the colours so they appear more distinct, or make some lines into arrows?
I like all 3 ideas—simulation, nuclear waste reduction and bio-hack awareness groups. I would like to include them in the map and award you 150 usd. How can I pay you?
Simulation is an X-Risk that we stagnate our universal drive to growth and live in a simulation for the rest of our lives and extinguish ourselves from existence.
Bio-Hack is an X-Risk because if done wrong you would encourage all these small bio-tech interests and end up with someone doing it unsafely.
The failure of mini biohack groups could probably be classified as controlled regression->small catastrophy. Similar to the small nuclear catastrophies of current history and their ability to discourage any future risk taking behaviour in the area.
The advantage of common bio-hack groups is less reliance on the existing big businesses to save us with vaccines etc.
Indeed the suggestion of “Invite the full population to contribute to solving the problem” might be a better description.
New suggestion: “lower the barriers of entry into the field of assistance in X-risk”. Easy explanation of the X-risks; easier availability of resources to attempt solutions. Assuming your main x-risks are 1. biotech; 2. nanotech; 3. nuclear, 4. climate change and 5. UFAI)
Provide Biotech upskill (education, some kind of OpenBio foundation) and Bioresources for anyone interested in the area (starter kit, smaller cheaper lab-on-a-chip, simple biotech “at-home” experiments like GFP insertion).
Teach the risks of molecular manufacturing before teaching people how to do it. (or restructure the education program to make sure it is included)
Teach 4th gen nuclear technologies to everyone. Implement small scale nuclear models. (i.e. tiny scale—not sure if it would work) to help people understand the possibility of a teeny nuclear failure but scaled up to large. (if it is possible to make a tiny scale nuclear reactor is beyond my knowledge)
empower the public with technology or understanding to reverse pollution. i.e. solar + batteries + electric cars; plant-trees initiatives (or oxygen bio-filters), carbon capture programs, educate and make possible small-scale sustainability (or close to it). Teach people 3D printing; Maker (fixer) mindset; reuse/upcycle; Reward disposable packaging more than non-disposable.
UFAI free education in the area, starter packages in programming. (I have no idea other than it seems to be being worked on by smart people)
New suggestion: Teach x-risk from 5 years old upwards. So that the next generation of humans understand that when they play with these kinds of powerful forces—they risk a whole lot more than they realise. (hopefully before having an x-risky accident to explicitly warn people about things)
New idea—I don’t think you covered: lock down all risk areas beneath piles of bureaucracy, paperwork, safety requirements and bullshit. No one gets to work on nuclear, no one gets to work on biotech without ridiculous safety standards, no one gets to create pollution without being arrested and charged, no one gets to code learning machines without strict supervision.
I like ideas about risks education and about bureaucracy I think I should include them in the map and award you 2 prizes. How I can transfer them?
Details by PM.
Reply in a PM.
Replied