Either the AI itself, or, if the AI is very well-designed, anyone and everyone who would really enjoy being the greatest philosopher in history.
B_For_Bandana
Karma: 796
I agree in principle, but I have basically no confidence in my ability to figure out what to do to help people in the future. There are two obstacles: random error and bias. Random error, because predicting the future is hard. And bias, because any policy I decide I like could be justified as being good for the future people, and that assertion couldn’t be refuted easily. The promise of helping even an enormous number of people in the future amounts to Pascal’s Wager, where donating to this or that charity or working on this or that research is like choosing this or that religion; all the possibilities cancel out and I have no reliable guide to what to actually do.
Admittedly this is all “I failed my art” stuff rather than the other way around, but well, it’s still true.
This isn’t a paradox, the bomb will go off no matter what, assuming Omega is a perfect predictor.
Amusingly, this wouldn’t seem like a paradox if something good was guaranteed to happen if Omega guessed right. Like if the problem was that you’re locked in a box, and you can only avoid getting a million dollars if you do the opposite of what Omega predicts. Answer: “cool, I get a million dollars!” and you stop thinking. In the problem as stated, you’re casting about for an answer that doesn’t seem possible, and that feels like thinking about paradoxes, so you think the problem is a paradox. It isn’t. You’re just trapped in a box with a bomb.
Well, if it costs anything like $2300, then...
Or are we taking seriously the possibility that the course of the economy is largely driven by quantum randomness?
Isn’t everything?
I’m someone who still finds subjective experience mysterious, and I’d like to fix that. Does that book provide a good, gut-level, question-dissolving explanation?
Stepan Arkadyevitch subscribed to a liberal paper, and read it. It was not extreme in those views, but advocated those principles the majority held. And though he was not really interested in science or art or politics, he strongly adhered to such views on all those subjects as the majority, including his paper, advocated, and he changed them only when the majority changed them; or more correctly, he did not change them, but they themselves imperceptibly changed in him.
Stepan Arkadyevitch never chose principles or opinions, but these principles and opinions came to him, just as he never chose the shape of a hat or coat, but took those that others wore. And, living as he did in fashionable society, through the necessity of some mental activity, developing generally in a man’s best years, it was as indispensable for him to have views as to have a hat. If there was any reason why he preferred liberal views rather than the conservative direction which many of his circle followed, it was not because he found a liberal tendency more rational, but because he found it better suited to his mode of life.
The liberal party declared that everything in Russia was wretched; and the fact was that Stepan Arkadyevitch had a good many debts and was decidedly short of money. The liberal party said that marriage was a defunct institution and that it needed to be remodeled, and in fact domestic life afforded Stepan Arakadyevitch very little pleasure, and compelled him to lie, and to pretend, which was contrary to his nature. The liberal party said, or rather allowed it to be understood, that religion is only a curb on the barbarous portion of the community, and in fact Stepan Arkadyevitch could not bear the shortest prayer without pain in his knees, and he could not comprehend the necessity of all these high-sounding words about the other world when it was so very pleasant to live in this one.
Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina
The personal is political!
You left off the most important point. If you think a topic is important and that someone smarter than you is already working on it, it would seem like your best move is to try and help.
Maybe they already have good lab assistants, and the best way for you to help is to work at the coffee shop that gives them their afternoon caffeine jolt, or the nuclear plant that powers their lab, or the daycare where their kids go—in other words, have a normal job in the non-research economy. Those kinds of jobs are absolutely necessary to support more blue-sky stuff, so many people will have to do them. Why assume you are so much smarter than that entire group?
This isn’t much use now (at least not in the northern hemisphere) but in wintertime, an uninsulated attic is effectively a refrigerator your parents don’t know about. Whether you use this knowledge to store secret artisanal cheeses, or beer, is up to you.
Okay, “perpetual motion machine” might have been hyperbolic—the comparison I had in mind was to what we might call a “weak” perpetual motion machine, which doesn’t generate energy but is exactly frictionless, so it twirls forever without energy input.
So, don’t get me wrong, it’s a nice hack, but it’s hardly perpetual or earth-shattering. One similar trick I know of is to have several credit cards, and use them to keep transferring the balance between them before interest accumulates; but this is less efficient, since the “free balance transfer” special offers occur relatively rarely.
Interesting! Didn’t know about that variant.
That was what impressed you? Not my creation of a real-life financial perpetual motion machine?
I have discovered a way to carry a credit card balance indefinitely, interest-free, without making payments, using only an Amazon Kindle.
How my card works is, any purchases made during Month N get applied to the balance due in the middle of Month N+1. So if I make a purchase now, in May 2013, it goes on the balance due June 15th. If I don’t pay the full May balance by June 15th, then and only then do they start charging interest. This is pretty typical of credit cards, I think.
Now the key loophole is that refunds are counted as payments, and are applied immediately, but purchases are applied to the balance due next month. So if I buy something on June 5th, and return it on June 6th, the purchase goes toward the balance due on July 15th, but the refund is applied as a payment on the balance due on June 15th! So you can pay your entire June balance with nothing but refunds, and you won’t have to worry about paying for those purchases until July, at which time you can do the whole thing again. The debt is still there, of course, because all you’ve done is add and then subtract say $100 from your balance, but absolutely no interest is charged. This process is limited only by your credit line (which you cannot exceed at any time) and by the ease with which you can buy and return stuff each month.
Here’s where the Kindle comes in. Repeatedly buying and returning items from a brick-and-mortar store is incredibly time-consuming and risky. You have to buy stuff, keep it in good shape, and then return it, interacting with human clerks each time, without raising suspicion. Not efficient. But if you have a Kindle, you know that when you buy a book, after you hit “Purchase” a screen comes up that asks if you have bought the item by accident, and if so, would you like to cancel the purchase. If you hit the button to cancel the purchase, what happens is that the purchase is still applied to your card, but it is refunded a couple of days later. Bingo. Automatic refunds, obtained at home at no risk, with no human oversight.
But e-books on Amazon are like $10, so you’d have to sit there all day hitting “buy” and “return” to shift a significant amount of debt, right? Wrong. If you know where to look, the Amazon kindle store has lots of handbooks, technical manuals, and textbooks that cost hundreds of dollars. Start out searching for “neurology handbook” and just surf the “similar books” list from there. Buy and return a few of those, and you’re set for another month.
Obviously you have to pay off the debt at some point. This is not free money. But if you’re in a tight spot for a few months, it’s incredibly useful. And hey, if the inflation-adjusted prime rate is 0%, why should you have to pay interest? You’re good for it.
This is by far the most munchkin-like idea I’ve ever had, and I’m pretty happy about it. I’ve been using it since January, making real payments toward my card as I can, and covering the rest with Amazon buy-and-returns. I know I’ll pay down the debt when I have a better job, but in the meantime it is really nice not to have to pay any interest on it.
But probably not even Warren Buffett can teach you to be the next Warren Buffett. That kind of extraordinary success is extraordinary because no one has yet figured out how to teach it reliably.
A nice example: this review of Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In, on Slate. The author complains that the book’s advice on how to succeed in business is vague, contradictory, and unhelpful. And now we know why.
Is the idea that, because people naturally shy away from bad info, making the world better also makes it easier (on the emotions) to understand?
...Very interesting. That is a thought that’s going to fester, in a good way.
Hmm. Yeah, that makes sense. (And very nicely put!)
Yes, experiments at the frontier of science are often unrepeatable, but that’s just a selection effect, no? Those problems are interesting precisely because we have not nailed down all the cause-and-effect relationships yet. An enormous number of cause-and-effect rules are so well understood that they are not considered scientifically interesting anymore, and it is those rules that allow us to navigate the world, get to places on time, stay out of mortal danger, and so on. Of course there is random error as you say, but the error is not infinitely large.
Anyway, I keep picking this nit because the Russel quote says that our causal models of the world are not just imperfect but actually “obsolete and misleading,” which sounds like an exaggeration.
What’s the context here? Many kinds of experiments are repeatable after all.
Yup, agreed.
The error was essential in the sense that it was an inevitable outcome of an essential process. Similarly you might say, “exhaling carbon dioxide is not essential for survival; what you really need is to turn food into energy.” But if I was prevented from exhaling CO2, I would quickly run into problems.
Probably an obvious point: epistemically that’s an error, but politically it’s probably an indispensable tactic. Say you do an honest and perfectly reliable utilitarian analysis, and find that chimpanzees really should not be used in research; the real substantial medical advances are not worth their suffering. But frustratingly the powers that be don’t care about chimps as much as they should. Your only hope is to convince them that chimp-using research is nearly useless to humans, so that even their undersized compassion for chimps will convince them to shut the research down.
I have a kind of romantic suspicion that nearly all politically active people are like this, that if you could somehow get them alone and sit them down and ask them what they really think, they’d go, “Yes, congratulations Einstein, you figured it out. Of course if we succeed then it’s likely the lives of [some group] will get a lot worse, but, well, omelets and eggs.” And then they swear you in and give you a membership card, because if you’ve gotten this far, then you can also see that they’re justified.