I really like your contribution here. It’s a great addition. Thank you.
I think many people are addicted to things that they’re good at, be it competitions or artistic creations or mathematics. I’m not saying there’s an easy tradeoff, and I’m certainly not saying that all addicts will probably end up being good at the thing their addicted to (e.g. gambling addicts). But neither can I say they never are.
I think I see what you’re pointing at. Something like… addictions can bring someone to cultivate something that (a) was very worth cultivating and (b) might have never been cultivated save for the addiction. Yes?
I agree.
I also think it’s worth tracking why (b) happens. If you can tell something is worth cultivating, why isn’t that enough?
I’m guessing that part of the issue is the cultural milieu we’re in (globally, not just LW). The incentives are loosely toward productivity and action. Taking the time to pay off psycho-emotional technical debt often comes with a lot of shame or inadequacy or fear.
So in that environment, it makes sense to get the goods directly, even if it incurs more technical debt.
One problem I’m tracking is… well, the metaphors get messy, but I’ll dive ahead anyway: Too much technical debt creates a kind of memetic environment that breeds things with survival instincts, and those things like protecting their tech-debt environment.
So on net, globally, I think it’s actually worthwhile to let some potential Olympic athletes fail to realize their potential if it means we collectively have more psychic breathing room.
And AFAICT, getting more shared breathing room is the main hope we have for addressing the real thing.
(…acknowledging that Eliezer (and surely others too) explicitly disagrees with me on this point.)
So on net, globally, I think it’s actually worthwhile to let some potential Olympic athletes fail to realize their potential if it means we collectively have more psychic breathing room.
And AFAICT, getting more shared breathing room is the main hope we have for addressing the real thing.
I think this is your most general and surprising claim, and I’ll hereby encourage you to write a post presenting arguments for it (ideally in a different style to the mildly pschyoactive post above, but not necessarily). I’m not sure to what extent I agree with your claim (I currently veer from 20% to 80% as I think about it) and I have some hope that if you wrote out some of the reasons that led to you believing it, it would help me make up my own mind a bit better.
Invitation noted. I’m open to it. I make no promises. But I like the curiosity and I’d love for what I’m seeing to land for more people and have more eyes on it.
Something like… addictions can bring someone to cultivate something that (a) was very worth cultivating and (b) might have never been cultivated save for the addiction. Yes?
I really like your contribution here. It’s a great addition. Thank you.
I think I see what you’re pointing at. Something like… addictions can bring someone to cultivate something that (a) was very worth cultivating and (b) might have never been cultivated save for the addiction. Yes?
I agree.
I also think it’s worth tracking why (b) happens. If you can tell something is worth cultivating, why isn’t that enough?
I’m guessing that part of the issue is the cultural milieu we’re in (globally, not just LW). The incentives are loosely toward productivity and action. Taking the time to pay off psycho-emotional technical debt often comes with a lot of shame or inadequacy or fear.
So in that environment, it makes sense to get the goods directly, even if it incurs more technical debt.
One problem I’m tracking is… well, the metaphors get messy, but I’ll dive ahead anyway: Too much technical debt creates a kind of memetic environment that breeds things with survival instincts, and those things like protecting their tech-debt environment.
So on net, globally, I think it’s actually worthwhile to let some potential Olympic athletes fail to realize their potential if it means we collectively have more psychic breathing room.
And AFAICT, getting more shared breathing room is the main hope we have for addressing the real thing.
(…acknowledging that Eliezer (and surely others too) explicitly disagrees with me on this point.)
I think this is your most general and surprising claim, and I’ll hereby encourage you to write a post presenting arguments for it (ideally in a different style to the mildly pschyoactive post above, but not necessarily). I’m not sure to what extent I agree with your claim (I currently veer from 20% to 80% as I think about it) and I have some hope that if you wrote out some of the reasons that led to you believing it, it would help me make up my own mind a bit better.
Here you go.
Very cool. I look forward to reading it.
Invitation noted. I’m open to it. I make no promises. But I like the curiosity and I’d love for what I’m seeing to land for more people and have more eyes on it.
Yes.