One of the triggers for getting agitated and repeating oneself more forcefully IME is an underlying fear that they will never get it.
romeostevensit
Karma: 9,607
I had first optimism and then sadness as I read the post bc my model is that every donor group is invested in the world where we make liability laundering organizations that make juicy targets for social capture the primary object of philanthropy instead of the actual patronage (funding a person) model. I understand it is about taxes, but my guess is that biting the bullet on taxes probably dominates given various differences. Is anyone working on how to tax efficiently fund individuals via eg trusts, distributed gift giving etc?
Upvotes for trying anything at all of course since that is way above the current bar.
Would be a Whole Thing so perhaps unlikely but here is something I would use: A bounty system, microtipping system on LW where I can both pay people for posts I really like in some visible way, with a percent cut going to LW, and a way to aggregate bounties for posts people want to see (subject to vote whether a post passed the bounty threshold etc.)
Just the general crypto cycle continuing onwards since then (2018). The idea being it was still possible to get in at 5% of current prices at around the time the autopsy was written.
We seem to be closing in on needing a lesswrong crypto autopsy autopsy. Continued failure of first principles reasoning bc blinded by speculative frenzies that happen to accompany it.
Is-ought confabulation
Means-ends confabulation
Scope sensitivity
Fundamental attribution error
Attribute substitution
Ambiguity aversion
Reasoning from consequences
Recurring option at the main donation link?
+1 it took a while as a child before I came to understand that reading a book and watching a movie were meaningfully different for some people.
pretty small, hard to quantify but I’d guess under 20% and perhaps under 10.
A lot of stuff turns out to hinge on effort. One of the reasons that strength programs work better than generic exercise routines is that with higher reps it’s easy to ‘tire yourself out’ at a level that doesn’t actually drive that much adaptation. Think of those fitness classes with weights. Decent cardio, but they don’t gain much strength.
Twisted: The Untold Story of a Royal Vizier isn’t really rational but is rat-adjacent and funny about it. Available to watch on youtube though the video quality isn’t fantastic.
what technologies like bbq are we missing?
It’s also my litmus test for community, if a group can’t succeed at casual BBQs at all or has them but they have to be a big production I am more wary.
Many people have no context in their life where they can get feedback on socially undesirable ideas from thoughtful people so that they can potentially update them. E.g. you hear socially undesirable thing online that you suspect has some truth to it, you can’t have any reasonable discussion about which aspects might be true, which might be false, and even amongst the more true parts how to navigate having that belief or what would be a wholesome framework to use to work with it, bc no feedback.
I’ll give an egregious example. At one time, iodizing salt in developing countries was opposed by some NGOs on the grounds that the argument that it raised IQ was some sort of fake racist thing. A person in that environment might have wanted to be able to discuss things in a safer space than whatever environment produced that insanity.
Thanks for writing this, I indeed felt that the arguments were significantly easier to follow than previous efforts.
My personal experience was that superintelligence made it harder to think clearly about AI by making lots of distinctions and few claims.
Thank you!
Ironically, I do not know who to attribute to the notion that ‘all problems are credit assignation problems.’
I’ve read leaked emails from people in similar situations before that made a couple things apparent:
Power talk happens on the phone for paper trail reasons
There is no meeting where an actual rational discussion of considerations and theories of change happens, everything really is people flying by the seat of their pants even at highest level. Talk of ethics usually just gets you excluded from the power talk.
I concluded this from the lack of any such talk in meeting minutes that are recorded, and the lack of any reference to such considerations in ‘previous conversations’ or requests to set up such meetings.
This elides the original argument by assuming the conclusion: that countermanding efforts remain cheap relative to the innovations. But the whole point is that significant shifts in costs associated with defense of a certain level can change behaviors and which plans and supply chains are economically defensible a lot.
Relatedly: people often discount improvements with large startup costs even if those costs are one time cost for an ongoing benefit. One of the worst is when it’s something one is definitely going to do eventually, so delaying paying the startup cost is simply reducing the amount of time for diffuse benefits. Exercise and learning to cook are like this.
People inexplicably seem to favor extremely bad leaders-->people seem to inexplicably favor bad AIs.