Currently spending time on derisking research (see derisked.org). Previously worked at BERI, EpiFor/FHI, CEA, IPA. Generally US-based.
Josh Jacobson
Karma: 568
Would anyone like the domain alignai.org ? Otherwise I’ll probably let it expire (bought for a previous org, which doesn’t want it).
Some lawyers claim that there may be significant (though not at all ideal) whistleblowing protection for individuals at AI companies that don’t fully comply with the Voluntary Commitments: https://katzbanks.com/wp-content/uploads/KBK-Law360-Despite-Regulation-Lag-AI-Whistleblowers-Have-Protections.pdf
Very quick, likely highly flawed and inaccurate Fermi on the worthwhileness of riding in SUVs or vans instead of sedans:
~50% safer per mile maybe
~20% more expensive to buy / rent / rideshare
~1 day per year gained in expectation for a 35 yo
~$10k spent on vehicle travel per year per person
Cost: ~$2k / day of life gained
Worthwhile if valuing a year at: ~$600k or greater
For injury prevention (and can help with exercise efficiency as well): use machines, not free weights.
I don’t know what it said pre-edit but your description sounds like it was directionally accurate (depending on how strongly it was worded).
There’s a decent argument that Cryonics takes on greater importance now.
There’s a lot of COVID going on my family right now, and my father’s birthday that three of us flew in for is tomorrow. I’m trying to figure out who (if anyone) is safe to spend time with him, and to what degree.
My father: 77 years old and in very good health for his age. Four Moderna shots, has never caught COVID. He’s the one we’re trying to protect from our infections.
Me (mid-30s): Triple vaxed (Moderna). Symptoms started Sunday June 19th and had a rapid test positive Sunday. Started Paxlovid Monday. Negative rapid test w/ throat swab yesterday and today. Negative NAAT test today. Symptoms were generally mild and seem to have ended late yesterday. Been in total isolation from others since positive test.
The following four people are all living together and not distancing from one another:
My sister (early 30s): Triple vaxed. Symptoms started Tuesday June 14th. Had significant symptoms and visited ER as a precaution but didn’t need to be admitted. Received bebtelovimab monoclonal antibodies. Pregnant. Started feeling better this past Thursday, but still symptomatic. Negative rapid tests with throat swabs 2 days ago, yesterday and today, negative NAAT rapid test today.
Her husband (early 30s): Triple vaxed, symptoms also started Tuesday June 14th. Took Paxlovid starting June 16th. Mild symptoms and has felt recovered for ~6 days now. Negative rapid tests with throat swab 2 days ago, yesterday and today and negative NAAT today.
Sister’s Husband’s Mother (60s): 4x vaxed, symptoms started Saturday June 11th. Took Paxlovid starting June 13th. Symptoms ended June 15th. Negative NAAT test June 20th, negative NAAT test today, but a positive rapid test with throat swab today, then a negative rapid with a different brand.
Sister’s Husband’s Father (60s): 4x vaxed, symptoms started Saturday June 11th. Took Paxlovid starting June 13th. Had had some breathing difficulty and lethargy since June 13th, which got better for a while and now is somewhat worse. Generally continues to feel affected by COVID. Negative NAAT on June 20th, positive NAAT today, negative rapid test with throat swab today.
Different scenarios all make sense to me, but I haven’t researched much:
-
We should listen to the rapid tests, and all are safe to spend time with my Dad as much as we want, except my Sister’s Husband’s Mother, who shouldn’t spend time with my Dad.
-
Same as above, except that given my sister’s husband’s mother has been living with the others, they might be able to pass on the virus as well. So only I am safe to be around my Dad.
-
That for everyone except me, enough time has passed that they’re very, very unlikely to be contagious (plus everyone has had a preponderance of negative tests). I’m very unlikely to be contagious due to my negative tests, although Paxlovid rebound is real and at least somewhat significant. Therefore everyone else is safe to be around my Dad, but I’m a couple percent risk of being contagious.
-
We all have a couple percentage point possibility of being contagious, and that an all day affair involving all of us may result in something like a 10% chance my Dad gets covid, which may be above our acceptable thresholds. In that case, we wouldn’t get together potentially, or would only gather e.g. outside and masked.
I’m interested in and would very much appreciate others thoughts! I don’t have at all a good understanding of to what extent each of us might be contagious, and would really like the thoughts of those who may have looked into this sort of question much more than I have.
-
Providing air support for Ukraine by sending in “little green men in little green airplanes”. Considered to be escalatory but has been done before in the Korean war by the Soviets at just as tense a time as today, when both superpowers were already nuclear-armed
What does this mean?
During their brief masking-optional pilot, the school reported that “smiling is more contagious than covid-19,” and a survey of students found that 70 percent said the policy improved their experience, including their ability to learn.
That only 70% of kids said that getting rid of an annoying thing was good from their point of view is to me surprisingly low, and an update in the opposite direction vs what was seemingly intended by those who shared that result.
Then again, none of these statistics ever mean much at all without looking at the survey instrument and such.
It’s interesting that you cite last year as evidence of your trading going well, at a 13.5% gain, while the S&P 500 (SPY) total return for 2021 was 28.7%. Can you elaborate on your perspective given that the market performed so well in general?
FWIW I’ve had a pretty opposite experience of what you describe with CI.
Bringing over the outcome of a lot of recent discussion I’ve had on Facebook and some research I’ve done regarding the Narwall Mask:
-
I believe there’s currently a lot of uncertainty as to the effectiveness of the Narwall, with multiple meaningful reasons for there to be uncertainty. A lot of effectiveness outcomes would not surprise me. I do not believe it has been well-tested nor well-analyzed, at least compared to those that meet NIOSH standards.
-
I think there’s enough information out there to statistically estimate its effectiveness with some reasonable degree of confidence, but it would take me another 3-8 hours (on top of my existing research) to do so. Considering a P100 is just ~$30 for me, I’ve just switched to that + glasses when relevant for now instead. I think others should do the same if they can achieve good fit with a P100 (the Microcovid authors seem to think this can often be achieved.) https://www.microcovid.org/paper/14-research-sources#masks
-
I think theres a 75% chance that after estimating its effectiveness, I’d find it to be meaningfully less than a P100 (e.g. less than 98.5% on the relevant filtration). I think there’s a 50% chance I’d find it to be approximately equal to an N95 mask or worse.
Sharing this here because some LWers wear it and I think there’s some value in sounding a warning about the mask potentially not being as effective as most likely anticipate.
-
there’s paid tools that estimate this, probably poorly
I’m quite skeptical that improvements will be realized by this methodology. Not clear that there are health improvement gains in expectation.
Thought about the timing of Pfizer pill availability for ~2 minutes, current guess is that it will be similar to the vaccines last year. Late this year very limited availability, becoming more and more available in the early months next year, easy to get around April or May.
A better time until sunburn calculator: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vX2GP2fiFnkrWfNpw/a-better-time-until-sunburn-calculator (with some related discussion)
The tone of strong desirability for progress on WBE in this was surprising to me. The author seems to treat progress in WBE as a highly desirable thing; a perspective I expect most on LW do not endorse.
The lack of progress here may be a quite good thing.
But even if I’m wrong about that, that is, as I said, none of the FDA’s damn business. The FDA’s damn business is whether the booster shots are safe and effective or not.
Is this defined somewhere? I see the FDA and CDC doing this frequently, so I’ve assumed part of their medical mandate is indeed to consider questions such as global supply. It is an odd separation of powers, with ambiguous overlap, where different groups decide on donation of vaccines… even across different types of vaccine (eg the CDC seems to have donated HPV vaccines, indirectly, in the past, and now the White House seems to be managing COVID vaccine supply? And donation targets?). Inefficient designation of responsible party for these decisions, from what I know.
It’s very likely that the CDC is overcounting asymptomatic cases, so we’ll continue using our ⅓ number for now.
Shouldn’t this say “undercounting”?
Epistemic status: just speculation, from a not very concrete memory, written hastily on mobile after a quick skim of the post.
My guess is that these results should be taken with a large grain of salt, but if I’m wrong, I’d be interested in hearing more about why.
Specifically, I think the “alignment researcher” population and “org leader” populations here are probably a far departure from what people envision when they hear these terms. I also expect other populations reported on to have a directionally similar skew to what I speculate below.
An anecdote for why I expect that (some aspects may be off):
I started the survey, based off the description that it’d be decently short. I found it long, involved, and asking various questions (marked as required) that I really wasn’t interested in answering (nor interested in the results of). IIRC it also had various ways in which the question phrasing was lacking. I accordingly abandoned it, while seeing there was still a long way to go to completion.
One additional factor for my abandoning it was that I couldn’t imagine it drawing a useful response population anyway; the sample mentioned above is a significant surprise to me (even with my skepticism around the makeup of that population). Beyond the reasons I already described, I felt that it being done by a for-profit org that is a newcomer and probably largely unknown would dissuade a lot of people from responding (and/or providing fully candid answers to some questions).
All in all, I expect that the respondent population skews heavily toward those who place a lower value on their time and are less involved. I expect this to generally be a more junior group, often not fully employed in these roles, with eg the average age and funding level of the orgs that are being led particularly low (and some of the orgs being more informal).
That’s a very legitimate and useful population to survey; I just think it also isn’t at all what people typically think of when hearing these terms.
I could be wrong about all of this! But my guess is it’s directionally useful for understanding this post.