… quite a lot, no?
XFrequentist
Karma: 2,324
Well, there’s this …
[ETA: link is to MIRI’s research guide, some traditional AI but more mathy/philosophical. Proceed with caution.]
(The alignment of both goals and methods between CFAR and the IC is, I think, under-exploited by both.)
It might be a bit obscure, but it’s not LW jargon!
I got waaay too far into this before I realized what you were doing… so well done!
Why limit it to the Americas?
Proof of concept, capacity, and feasibility. I’d love to see this done for all disease-carrying mosquitoes, but you’ve got to start somewhere.
can a lethal mutation be self-perpetuating?
Yes. I’m actually not sure if this would work at a continental scale (or rather, how many modified mosquito releases would be required, is this number infeasible, etc). This is something I’m interested in modelling.
Aedes aegypti (the “Dengue mosquito”) should be eradicated from the Americas by releasing genetically-modified mosquitoes carrying self-perpetuating lethal mutations.
I’ve delved into this literature a bit while researching a (currently shelved) paper on automation-associated error, and I agree with the title of this post!
Your confusion is a clever ruse, but your username gives away your true motives!
Self-perpetuating area-wide techniques like mass release of modified mosquitoes with gene-drive systems is very probably a superior answer if the problem is “there are too many (ie any) human-feeding mosquitoes”.
If the problem is rather “what is the coolest-sounding possible way to wipe out mosquitoes”, then drone-mounted lasers are in the running.
I call forth the mighty Cyan!
I credit an undergrad summer job in door-to-door sales for moving my social skills from “terrible” to “good”. For that particular job we literally had a points system that was visible to everyone in the office (and determined incentives like fully-paid vacations abroad), and you’d sell enough on a daily basis that you knew roughly how you were doing (ie 5 sales was a decent day, 10 outstanding, 2 bad, out of perhaps 100 interactions), so it was a near-perfect training ground.
I know who this is. If he doesn’t out himself I’ll PM you with contact info.
Just some epistemic hygiene: Janet Fang is a journalist, this quote is from a (good) non-scientific article, and the basis for this statement is a collection of (mostly expert) opinions.
I happen to share this opinion, but I don’t think this quote should be given very much weight in anyone’s risk evaluation.
One issue is the same intervention doesn’t necessarily affect both. For example, where I live West Nile virus is transmitted primarily by Culex pippiens mosquitoes, while the most abundant nuisance mosquito is Ochlerotatus stimulans.
Controlling one species will not greatly affect the other (they breed in radically different conditions). It’s not a matter of scaling up operations; you need an entirely different strategy, with commensurate increase in operating costs, complexity, potential failure points, etc etc.
Give me unlimited resources and global remit and I’ll take them all out, absent this prioritisation becomes necessary.
[Hey, I thought I was the token epidemiologist! ;) ]
I largely agree with Anders’ comment (leave Pearl be for now; it’s a difficult book), but there are some interesting non-causal mathy epidemiology topics that might suit your needs.
Concretely: study networks. Specifically, pick up the book Networks, Crowds, and Markets: Reasoning about a Highly Connected World (or download the free pdf, or take the free MOOC).
It presents a smooth slope of increasing mathematical sophistication (assuming only basic high school math at the outset), and is endlessly interesting as it gently builds and extends concepts. It eventually touches many of the topics you’ve indicated interest in (game theory, voting, epidemic dynamics, etc), giving you some powerful mathematical tools to reason with. Advanced sections are clearly marked as such, and can be passed over without losing coherence.
And hey, if the math in the advanced sections frustrates your understanding… that’s basically what you’ve said you want!
Ooh ooh, do mine!
Done did the survey!
I don’t see any reason to only target those that transmit diseases. Target ones that are simply annoying because they string the average person, gives everyone a clear reason to support the proposal.
This is a good point—in fact, a distinction is usually drawn between “nuisance” and “disease vector” mosquito control (they can involve very different operations), and I’ve heard very knowledgeable people say that the only way to maintain public support for a control program is if there’s a strong nuisance component. You may be right on this, but note that I never contended otherwise (albopictus is both an efficient disease vector and a major nuisance).
If you have to continue paying a few million each year to keep the mosquito population near zero that’s no problem for any industrialized country if there’s public will.
Oh sure, but that’s not eradication! There are lots of mosquito population suppression programs around the world, many paid for with public funds (particularly in areas with lots of outdoor tourism and a strong local business influence in municipal politics). Programs like this work at even vastly sub-country spatial scales, but as you say you need to keep doing them year in year out. Part of the beauty of eradication is no longer needing ongoing investment.
Don’t worry as far as biological imprecision goes. [...] I would certainly invest the necessary effort [...]
Good!
According to the map on Wikipedia we don’t have any aedes albopictus in Germany but 4 neighboring countries have them. That means that it’s not a valid target for German activism. Otherwise do you disagree with that map?
Well, species distribution maps are notoriously tricky to get right, but suppose it’s right. The beauty of albopictus as a target is it’s a highly invasive species, happy to set up shop anywhere a little pot of water with some organic residue can be found (and perhaps an annual mean temperature >11C, though I’m not convinced by the data on this). I would imagine Germany is at risk of invasion, which is an awesome opportunity for activism - (almost) no one minds local eradication of an invasive species!
Your definition what counts as “AI related” seems to be narrower than mine, but fine. I trust readers can judge whether the linked resources are of interest.