Alexander

Karma: 520

Alexander Feb 7, 2022, 7:14 AM
9 points
on: A Quick Look At 20% Time
Excellent write-up. Thanks, Elizabeth.
I’m a software engineer at a company that implements a “20%”. Every couple of months, we have a one (sometimes two) week sprint for the 20%. As you’ve pointed out, it works out to be less than 20%, and many engineers choose to keep working on their primary projects to catch up on delivery dates.
In the weeks leading up to the 20% sprint, we create a collaborative table in which engineers propose ideas and pitch those ideas in a meeting on the Monday morning of the sprint. Proposals fall into two categories:
- Reducing technical debt. E.g. deprecating the usage of an old library.
- Prototyping a new idea. E.g. trying out the performance of a new library.
I find the 20% sprints very valuable. A lot of the time, there is work I would like to be done that doesn’t fit well within “normal” priorities. I believe such work to be valuable based on my experience and knowledge. However, it doesn’t have sufficient visibility from the perspectives of the higher levels. Therefore, this sort of work would never make its way into our everyday work without the 20% sprint.

Alexander Feb 7, 2022, 3:44 AM
10 points
on: Alexander’s Shortform
On the mating habits of the orb-weaving spider:
These spiders are a bit unusual: females have two receptacles for storing sperm, and males have two sperm-delivery devices, called palps. Ordinarily the female will only allow the male to insert one palp at a time, but sometimes a male manages to force a copulation with a juvenile female, during which he inserts both of his palps into the female’s separate sperm-storage organs. If the male succeeds, something strange happens to him: his heart spontaneously stops beating and he dies in flagrante. This may be the ultimate mate-guarding tactic: because the male’s copulatory organs are inflated, it is harder for the female (or any other male) to dislodge the dead male, meaning that his lifeless body acts as a very effective mating plug. In species where males aren’t prepared to go to such great lengths to ensure that they sire the offspring, then the uncertainty over whether the offspring are definitely his acts as a powerful evolutionary disincentive to provide costly parental care for them.
Source: “The Social Instinct” by Nichola Raihani.

Alexander Feb 5, 2022, 2:25 AM
7 points
on: Why will AI be dangerous?
I think that you raise a crucial point. I find it challenging to explain to people that AI is likely very dangerous. It‘s much easier to explain that pandemics, nuclear wars or environmental crises are dangerous. I think this is mainly due to the abstractness of AI and the concreteness of those other dangers, leading to availability bias.
The most common counterarguments I’ve heard from people about why AI isn’t a serious risk are:
- AI is impossible, and it is just “mechanical” and lacks some magical properties only humans have.
- When we build AIs, we will not embed them with negative human traits such as hate, anger and vengeance.
- Technology has been the most significant driver of improvements in human well-being, and there’s no solid evidence that this will change.
I have found that comparing the relationship between humans and chimpanzees with humans and hypothetical AIs is a good explanation that people find compelling. There’s plenty of evidence suggesting that chimpanzees are pretty intelligent, but they are just not nearly intelligent enough to influence human decision making. This has resulted in chimps spending their lives in captivity across the globe.
Another good explanation is based on insurance. The probability that your house will be destroyed is small, but it’s still prudent to buy home insurance. Suppose you believe that the likelihood that AI will be dangerous is small. Is it not wise that we insure ourselves by dedicating resources towards the development of safe AI?

Alexander Feb 5, 2022, 1:11 AM
6 points
on: Alexander’s Shortform
This is a list of the top 100 most cited scientific papers . Reading all of them would be a fun exercise.

Alexander Feb 2, 2022, 8:57 PM
5 points
on: Good books about overcoming coordination problems?
The Evolution of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod

Alexander Jan 27, 2022, 12:24 AM
7 points
in reply to: TurnTrout’s comment on: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction
Speculating about this is a fun exercise. I argue that the answer is less probable.
The survivors might have a more substantial commitment to life affirmation given that the fragility of life is so fresh in their minds following Armageddon. I argue that this would have a minimal effect. We know that the dinosaurs went extinct, and we know that the average lifespan for a mammalian species is about one million years. We know that we have fought world wars, and we know that life is precious and unreasonably rare in the universe. Yet, in aggregate, we still don’t care that much about safeguarding the future of life. Existential risk reduction doesn’t factor heavily into our decision making and how we allocate our resources.
In terms of technological progress, I think a post-nuclear war civilisation would likely quickly bootstrap itself, given the abundance of already extracted raw materials and knowledge left behind. However, on the whole, Armageddon would be a severe hindrance to technological progress. Political, social and economic stability appears advantageous to the creation of knowledge.

Alexander Jan 26, 2022, 11:35 PM
10 points
on: Why do we need a NEW philosophy of progress?
Thanks for all the excellent writing on economic progress you’ve put out. I completed reading “Creating a Learning Society” by Joseph Stiglitz a few days ago, and I am in the process of writing a review of that book to share here on LessWrong. Your essays are providing me with a lot of insights that I hope to take into account in my review :D

Alexander Jan 26, 2022, 12:20 PM
12 points
on: Alexander’s Shortform
The theory of ‘morality as cooperation’ (MAC) argues that morality is best understood as a collection of biological and cultural solutions to the problems of cooperation recurrent in human social life. MAC draws on evolutionary game theory to argue that, because there are many types of cooperation, there will be many types of morality. These include: family values, group loyalty, reciprocity, heroism, deference, fairness and property rights. Previous research suggests that these seven types of morality are evolutionarily-ancient, psychologically-distinct, and cross-culturally universal. The goal of this project is to further develop and test MAC, and explore its implications for traditional moral philosophy. Current research is examining the genetic and psychological architecture of these seven types of morality, as well as using phylogenetic methods to investigate how morals are culturally transmitted. Future work will seek to extend MAC to incorporate sexual morality and environmental ethics. In this way, the project aims to place the study of morality on a firm scientific foundation.
Source: https://www.lse.ac.uk/cpnss/research/morality-as-cooperation.

Alexander Jan 26, 2022, 9:28 AM
7 points
in reply to: Rafael Harth’s comment on: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction
Yes, it looks isomorphic. Thanks for sharing your write-up. You’ve captured this idea well.

Alexander Jan 26, 2022, 9:00 AM
9 points
in reply to: gbear605’s comment on: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction
I appreciate how Toby Ord considers “knock-on effects” in his modelling of existential risks, as presented in “The Precipice”. A catastrophe doesn’t necessarily have to cause extinction for it to be considered an existential threat. The reason being knock-on effects, which would undoubtedly impair our preparedness for what comes next.

Alexander Jan 26, 2022, 7:43 AM
4 points
in reply to: lsusr’s comment on: Why do you believe AI alignment is possible?
I like your perspective here, but I don’t think it’s a given that human brains are necessarily aligned with human ‘values’. It entirely depends on how we define human values. Let’s suppose that long-term existential risk reduction is a human value (it ranks highly in nearly all moral theories). Because of cognitive limitations and biases, most human brains aren’t aligned with this value.

Alexander Jan 26, 2022, 7:37 AM
3 points
on: Your intuitions are not magic
The intuitions vs reasons debates often appear misguided to me. You’ve eloquently pointed out that intuitions result from the same black box of spaghetti code as reasons, namely the brain.

Alexander Jan 26, 2022, 4:46 AM
5 points
in reply to: ChadReed’s comment on: Excessive Nuance and Derailing Conversations
Excellent point. I agree that it’s hard to develop a general rule about nitpicking versus pertinent rigour. It is an “I know it when I see it” sort of thing.
Usually, the way this plays out for me is that if my interlocutor is nitpicking, I would feel misunderstood. Meanwhile, if my interlocutor applies genuine rigour to my premises, I would feel enlightened.

Alexander Jan 26, 2022, 1:27 AM
1 point
in reply to: acylhalide’s comment on: Excessive Nuance and Derailing Conversations
It could be an interesting exercise to speculate about what value the dominant social norms around conversational etiquette serve. Why is ‘hogging the mic’ considered ‘rude’? On the one hand, when someone hogs the mic, they reveal information that might help us in future decision-making (assuming they are not strategically lying). On the other hand, when someone hogs the mic, they are depriving us of the opportunity to show others what we know and thus depriving us of the opportunity to make new allies. When someone invites others to speak, I guess it signals that they are confident in what they know and don’t feel a pressing need to take centre-stage at every opportunity.

Alexander Jan 25, 2022, 9:51 AM
7 points
in reply to: acylhalide’s comment on: Excessive Nuance and Derailing Conversations
Very fair points. I don’t believe there exists a “universal” definition of status-ness that I can link you to. I view status and prestige as being shaped by social norms that have evolved over millennia, and norms differ across cultures. However, ‘hogging the mic’ is widely seen as ‘rude’ in many human societies. I argue that nitpicking and intentionally missing the point of your interlocutor is also ‘rude’.
I didn’t go much into diagnosis and problem-solving in this post because that’s outside my scope. Being a person is really complicated, so I don’t want to make sweeping statements about why some people exhibit good conversational skills while others don’t.
Having sincere friends who seldomly hold back on pointing out your mistakes helps. In your case, you mention the root cause was emotional distress. In that circumstance, maybe meditation or other mind relaxing activities could help. Again, this is outside my scope.

Alexander Jan 24, 2022, 5:36 AM
4 points
on: Is AI Alignment a pseudoscience?
I am no AI expert. Still, I have some views about AI alignment, and this is an excellent place to share them.
[I’m stating the following as background for the rest of my comment.] AI alignment splits nicely into:
- Inner alignment: aligning an agent with a goal.
- Outer alignment: aligning a goal with a value.
The terms agent and value are exceptionally poorly defined. What even is an agent? Can we point to some physical system and call it an agent? What even are values?
Our understanding of agents is limited, and it is an “I know it when I see it” sort of understanding. We know that humans are agents. Humans are agents we have right before our eyes today, unlike the theoretical agents with which AI alignment is concerned. Are groups of agents also agents? E.g. is a market, a nation or a government an agent made up of subagents?
If we agree that humans are agents, then do we understand how to align human beings towards desirable goals that align with some values? If we don’t know how to align human beings effectively, what chances do we have of aligning theoretical agents that don’t yet exist?
Suppose that your goal is to develop vaccines for viral pandemics. You have no idea how to make vaccines for existing viruses. Instead of focusing on learning the knowledge needed to create vaccines for existing viruses, you create models of what viruses might theoretically look like 100 years from now based on axioms and deduced theorems. Once you have these theoretical models, you simulate theoretical agents, viruses and vaccines and observe how they perform in simulated environments. This is useful indeed and could lead to significant breakthroughs, but we have a tighter learning loop by working with real viruses and real agents interacting in real environments.
In my eyes, the problem of AI alignment is more broadly a problem of aligning the technology we humans create towards fulfilling human values (whatever human values are). The problem of aligning the technology we make towards human values is a problem of figuring out what those values are and then figuring out incentive schemes to get humanity to cooperate towards achieving those values. Given the abysmal state of international cooperation, we are doing very badly at this.
Once I finished writing the above, I had some second thoughts. I was reminded of this essay written by Max Tegmark:
It was OK for wisdom to sometimes lag in the race because it would catch up when needed. With more powerful technologies such as nuclear weapons, synthetic biology, and future strong artificial intelligence, however, learning from mistakes is not a desirable strategy: we want to develop our wisdom in advance so that we can get things right the first time because that might be the only time we’ll have.
The above quote highlights what is so unique about AI safety. The best course of action might be to work with theoretical agents because we may have no time to solve the problem when the superintelligent agents arrive. The probability of my house being destroyed is small, but I still pay for insurance because that’s the rational thing to do. Similarly, even if the probability of catastrophic risk resulting from superintelligence is small, it’s still prudent to invest in safety research.
That said, I still stand by my earlier stances. Working towards aligning existing agents and working towards aligning theoretical agents are both crucial pursuits.

Alexander Jan 24, 2022, 4:37 AM
5 points
on: What’s Up With Confusingly Pervasive Consequentialism?
Is there a book out there on instrumental convergence? I have not come across this idea before and would like to learn more about it.

Alexander Jan 24, 2022, 2:39 AM
1 point
in reply to: hath’s comment on: Excessive Nuance and Derailing Conversations
Thank you, done :D

Alexander Jan 23, 2022, 11:38 PM
7 points
in reply to: Alex Vermillion’s comment on: Excessive Nuance and Derailing Conversations
Yes! Letting go is key to conversational skill.
What you describe is letting go of certain topics that you would like to be discussed further, and I think that’s extremely valuable.
The other kind of letting go is letting go of the urge to nitpick and apply excessive nuance to every little point no matter how relevant to a context.

Alexander Jan 23, 2022, 11:20 PM
1 point
in reply to: Andrew Nelson’s comment on: Excessive Nuance and Derailing Conversations
Hey, thanks for sharing your perspective. This is not particular to rationalist communities. I’ve experienced this with non-rationalist social circles.
I’ve added the following paragraph to the post to address your point:
Another context in which exploring many topics is desirable is when getting to know someone new. In this context, traversing a breadth of topics quickly and having flexibility in which topics to discuss will maximise the chances of finding a common interest.
However, the kind of topic change I describe is different, and it often results in conversations growing in depth towards rabbit holes rather than in breadth and flexibility.