Missed the forest for the trees. Supply is short, and lots of government regulations distort the market (mainly risk). Federal US has been chronically underperforming with regards to the supply of housing. Extra distortions on the margins in NYC.
AaronF
Karma: 17
“One child is a death sentence. “
Someone who writes this, is not a rational person. Not a reasonable person. Not a well-balanced, measured person. In fact, just one sentence, destroyed the whole pot.
Easily? Those weren’t arms races; and I’d argue that genetic engineering issue is completely based on the inherent limitation and difficulty of the technology; Not an outside agreement to cull the arms-race. Leaded gasoline would harm the individual nations, even without an agreement.
Is there any agreement where a country has agreed to cutting their own horns? (Could argue Russia-US missile agreement; which has been a strategic disaster re China, though it is in quantity not a quality agreement).
I think your argument about the impact and ability of AI is exactly the reason your agreement would never work, never mind that enforcement would be nearly impossible (I doubt the LLM’s are constricted by GPU’s). You are trying to have it both ways, that AI would give a country a decisive and massive edge in development, but it won’t take it because of an agreement? And do so easily? And no other country will defect? (Even NK defected with nukes).
I wish I had your optimism about human nature or animal life in general; you are trying to modify evolution.
“Likewise, risks from competing nation states (e.g China) could be mitigated via existing intentional collaboration strategies—nuclear proliferation management techniques like inspections & intelligence agencies keeping check on each other could feasibly serve as a means for the world to prevent the development of AI. “
This is a word salad that has zero empirical or theoretical foundation. Gunpowder, greenhouse gases, virus pathology and many other fields have shown this to be empirically false. We’d all be better off is there wasn’t arms races and runaway selection (though would we have evolved in the first place?), but denying this fact gets us nowhere.
Fair. I removed it.
“Removed.”
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
Here is Ole Peters: [Puzzle] “Voluntary insurance contracts constitute a puzzle because they increase the expectation value of one party’s wealth, whereas both parties must sign for such contracts to exist [Answer]: Time averages and expectation values differ because wealth changes are non-ergodic.”
Peters again: “Conceptually, its power derives from a new notion of rationality. Many reasonable models of wealth are non-stationary processes. Observables representing wealth then do not have the ergodic property of Section I, and therefore rationality must not be defined as maximizing expectation values of wealth. Rather, we propose as a null model to define rationality as maximizing the time-average growth of wealth.”
You write: “Kelly betting, on the other hand, assumes a finite bankroll—and indeed, might have to be abandoned or adjusted to handle negative money.” [Negative Interest rate?] Can you explain more? Would love to fit this conceptually into Peter’s Non-ergodic growth rate theory
My basic and primitive understanding (From Taleb Etc.) is that there are a few ideas that are important; such as ergodicity; at least when trading in a complex market and why you should follow Kelly criterion. Also, fat tails etc.
But when I did the research like you, it seemed quite sparse.
Literature is rife with individual stresses and anxiety, people don’t really talk much about ecological stressors. Even if you are resilient, the environment plays a part in productivity.
“During the recent COVID-19 pandemic, traditional (offline) chess tournaments were prohibited and instead held online. We exploit this as a unique setting to assess the impact of moving offline tasks online on the cognitive performance of individuals...Our results suggest that teleworking might have adverse effects on workers performing cognitive tasks. KEY: A crucial difference to the offline setting is that the peer pressure to concentrate in a playing hall is missing. For instance, Falk and Ichino (2006) find that students place letters in envelopes at a higher speed when other students are faced with the same task sit in the room.”
Retracted
Well-said.
To add to comment:
OP: “Some examples to illustrate the absurdity of this logic: Mammals live outdoors; therefore, homelessness is good.”
A positive statement would be that, it may be an evolutionary ‘good’ even if distasteful. An example might be that homelessness people may have more partners than a high IQ autist that has a mansion. Or we can say, all else being equal, it is healthier for humans to be outside more, much more than in the modern world. Designed housing and modern urban systems need to take this into account.
OP: “Animals are illiterate; therefore, illiteracy is good.”
It may be distasteful, but many studies show that years of education means lower fertility; and that sexual selection TODAY actually does select for genes that are less-intelligent* (ADHD or even bad habits like alcohol and smoking.) Nature works in mysterious ways. A good way is that we need to think quite hard about underlying behaviors. Why are literacy rates so low? And persistently so?
*See: Life without sex: Large-scale study links sexlessness to physical, cognitive, and personality traits, socioecological factors, and DNA: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.07.24.24310943v1.full