Brian E Adams

Karma: 29

Married 35 year old Texan with 5 young children. USMA ’09, US Army w/ 1 Afghanistan deployment, licensed Realtor, middle manager setting rents at an institutional landlord.

I identify as a Republican, rationalist, fusionist conservative, Austrian, classical liberal, Evangelical Christian, and neoconservative.

I meet the broad definition of an effective altruist (do the max good), but am more precisely an EA skeptic, particularly wary of the EA’s technocratic inclinations and overconfidence in empiricism. I’m here for good faith persuasion as to why I’m wrong!

Favorite concept is Auftragstaktik. Favorite thinker is Hayek.

Brian E Adams 23 Nov 2023 1:26 UTC
−17 points
1 ∶ 2
in reply to: Jason’s comment on: Sam Altman returning as OpenAI CEO “in principle”
A possibility?

For that to be possible, it would require that Open AI was NOT sexist when it brought on two female board members. It somehow BECAME sexist later, after which it fired them both (as well as two other male board members, also known as the entire board), and imagines that event had little connection to the fact that these very board members had nearly destroyed the $100B company over which they were stewards in the preceding four days.

It’s a grotesque calumny. That’s all it is. It’s immoral race/sex baiting and should be called out as such rather than entertained, unless he has actual information about events he declined to share in his original post.

Brian E Adams 23 Nov 2023 0:35 UTC
−14 points
2 ∶ 1
in reply to: Robert Van Buskirk’s comment on: Sam Altman returning as OpenAI CEO “in principle”
Your original comment, based on no evidence whatsoever, assuming the worst motivations of a stranger, and stretching to indulge the most divisive and identitarian explanation of events, gets rejected, and your reaction is to play the victim and pretend it confirms your hypothesis.

That’s why.

Brian E Adams 2 Apr 2023 15:59 UTC
2 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Linyphia’s comment on: The fundamental human value is power.
Given power comes from choices, it makes sense power would correlate with available choices. But I think its significant about which comes first.

It may seems difference without distinction, but not in my experience.

An example: lots of managers talk about empowerment in the workplace. But then remove control over choices from employees in the name of “consistency”, “guardrails”, “scalability”, etc. Those choices is where power comes from, and it’s therefore disempowering to elevate the choices higher and organizations usually suffer.

So I think we probably agree? I just think choice precedes power, not the other way around.

I also like Nassim Taleb’s idea of optionality, in which choice, even inferior choices, have value in that they give us options.

Yes, if AGI removes choices, that would strike me as bad.

Brian E Adams 31 Mar 2023 21:56 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 5
on: We might get lucky with AGI warning shots. Let’s be ready!
I think the best way to stop a bad guy with an AI is a good guy with an AI.

And hamstringing the well intentioned people willing to play by the rules will only give the edge to the bad guys.

Your designs could backfire spectacularly, were it even workable.

Brian E Adams 31 Mar 2023 2:29 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
on: The fundamental human value is power.
I think power is the product of choice. Power can be reduced to “having choices”.

Brian E Adams 10 Jan 2023 0:23 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Jeroen Willems🔸’s comment on: Is anyone else also getting more worried about hard takeoff AGI scenarios?
I believe marginal utility simply means that automation will reduce the cost of many things to negligible, meaning our resources will be free to spend on other domains that are by definition not automated and still labor intensive.

At the point there is no such job, we’ll have, also by definition, achieved radical abundance at which point being jobless doesn’t matter.

Wouldn’t a UBI then artificially prop up the current economy to the detriment of achieving radical abundance? Because it would be paid for via a tax of some kind on these “so abundant it’s free” goods and keep them from becoming....so abundant they’re free, no?

Of all the things AGI concerns me about, losing my job is by far the least of my worries.

Brian E Adams 23 Dec 2022 6:43 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: JakubK’s comment on: The next decades might be wild
My half baked theory is that there will always be jobs shy of radical abundance in which case jobs won’t be necessary.

If AI automated all knowledge work WITHOUT delivering radical abundance, then there would still be jobs delivering goods/services that AI is, by definition, not delivering.

And if so, we have nothing to fear.

Brian E Adams 20 Dec 2022 23:48 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: freedomandutility’s comment on: List of cause areas that EA should potentially prioritise more
I’m loathe to use this, but let’s use QLY and assume, as I believe, it can never be less than 0 (e.g. better to die than live).

There is nothing worse than death. There are no benefits unless that death unlocks life.

I don’t think the (likely nonexistent) positive effects of “generation replacement” will mean literally fewer deaths, and certainly not on a scale to justify discounting the deaths of entire generations of individuals.

I don’t think “personal beliefs” should be included in an “all known factors” analysis of how we invest our resources. Should I value Muslim lives less because they may disagree with me on gay rights? Or capital punishment? Why not, in your framework?

I also don’t think there’s a “but” after “all lives are equal”. That can be true AND we have to make judgment calls about how we invest our resources. My external action is not a reflection of your intrinsic worth as a human but merely my actions given constraints. Women and children may be first on the lifeboat, but that does not mean they are intrinsically worth more morally than men. I think it’s a subtle but extremely important distinction, lest we get to the kind of reasoning that permits explicitly morally elevating some subgroups over others.

I do agree that there is private sector incentive for anti-aging, but I think that’s true of a lot of EA initiatives. I’m personallg unsure of how wise diverting funds from Really Important Stuff is a good thing just because RIS happens to be profitable. I could perhaps make the case it’s even MORE important to invest there, if you’re inclined to be skeptical of the profit motive (though I’m not, so I’m not included).

Brian E Adams 20 Dec 2022 0:24 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Richard Y Chappell🔸’s comment on: Saving Lives vs Creating Lives
I think I understand and that makes sense to me.

Brian E Adams 19 Dec 2022 23:34 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: freedomandutility’s comment on: List of cause areas that EA should potentially prioritise more
If I understand what you’re saying correctly, this is another reason I don’t identify as EA.

You’re basically saying people dying is advantageous because their influence is replaced by people you deem as having superior virtues?

Its not obvious to me that “replacement” generations have superior values to those that they replace merely on account of being younger/newer etc..

But even accepting that’s the case, how is discounting someone’s life because they have the wrong opinions not morally demented?

Brian E Adams 19 Dec 2022 5:26 UTC
3 points
1 ∶ 0
on: Saving Lives vs Creating Lives
I don’t understand the positive duty to procreate which seems to be an accepted premise here?

Morality is an adverb not an adjective.

Is a room of 100 people 100x more “moral” than a room with 1 person. What’s wrong with calling that a morally neutral state? (I’m not totalling up happiness or net pleasure or any of that weird stuff).

Only when forced into a trolley problem when we have actual decisions do our decisions, e.g. kill 1 person or 100 people, does the number of people have significance.

Brian E Adams 19 Dec 2022 4:59 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
on: List of cause areas that EA should potentially prioritise more
This may fall under “general medical stuff” but I’ve always been surprised how little EA seems to care about aging and human longevity, especially given how fond this community is in measuring “quality life years”.

Progress here could solve depopulation problems among the other obvious benefits.

Brian E Adams 19 Dec 2022 4:56 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
on: Cause Suggestion: Econ Literacy
I wonder if mass economic literacy is less important than a few elites and institutions who have leverage over a nation’s economic decision making. Are there more significant structural reforms that would be more impactful rather than merely “electing better”?

Not sure what kind of reform would drive a policy like cap and trade (but I also think there are economically cogent arguments against cap and trade).

Brian E Adams 19 Dec 2022 4:49 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 1
in reply to: freedomandutility’s comment on: List of reasons to discount the welfare of future generations
If our interests are qualitatively the same, it doesn’t matter to what extent we weigh their interest. We are achieving it by pursuing our own: health, wealth, happiness.

Perhaps if you feel otherwise, it’s because you feel we are mortgaging our future for the present? I don’t think that is true, generally. Climate change, national debt, insolvent pensions....all are tractable problems we’re either a) solving now and/or, b) are sufficiently incentivized to solve for.

Brian E Adams 17 Dec 2022 18:19 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Announcing the Forecasting Research Institute (we’re hiring)
The best chapter in Super forecasting was Chapter 10: the Leaders Dilemma (although I’m biased as a former military officer in that it confirmed many of my priors). I feel like its concepts are the most relevant to the practical implementation of effective forecasting, yet I don’t see a lot of talk about it in the EA community.

Brian E Adams 17 Dec 2022 18:09 UTC
3 points
2 ∶ 3
in reply to: Shiney’s comment on: Radical tactics can increase support for more moderate groups
Seems like you can treat it as two separate questions, this post only tackling the first:
1. is radicalism effective at moving the Overton window?
2. if yes, is it morally justifiable?
I agree with you it’s a hard “no” on the second question, but the first question is still interesting to explore.

Brian E Adams 17 Dec 2022 16:12 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
on: List of reasons to discount the welfare of future generations
It seems unlikely that the interests of future generations would be different to our own, so efforts at improving our own interests is very effective at improving theirs as well?

Brian E Adams 17 Dec 2022 4:16 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: mariushobbhahn’s comment on: The next decades might be wild
General AI isn’t the same as radical abundance, but to the extent they’re the same, I see that as making the unemployment concern moot.

I also have faith that humans will continue with the “purpose driven life” under such circumstances.

Brian E Adams 17 Dec 2022 4:14 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: JakubK’s comment on: The next decades might be wild
1. Yes. Though I have a higher opinion of how adaptable humans can be.
2. Using my own work as a benchmark (residential real estate pricing), AI automation would be a huge benefit to enable me to spend my time on higher level analysis. There’s a lot of AI that my role can absorb while my job still being safe.
That’s especially true in my industry in which adverse selection is prominent. AI making me more effective will be necessary merely to keep up with our competition. It won’t replace us because that will be the default starting position from which we as humans need to then compete at another level relative the competition.
1. I’m not convinced that the AI revolution benefits the high tech roles relative blue collar roles. AI is a lot closer to writing code from a language prompt than it is massaging someone’s back or even truck driving, for that matter.
2. I hope this is right. Would love the kinds of breakthroughs AI will provide and whatever we can do to get closer to radical abundance, which I think is the holy grail.
I also don’t see a systemic reason thst AI benefits won’t A) be broadly shared, and B) shy of radical abundance, that economic principles won’t continue to reward non-automated work. Automated activities will become cheap because they’re abundant, while activity that can’t be automated will rise in demand/price and be rewarded as a consequence.

Brian E Adams 16 Dec 2022 5:24 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 2
in reply to: JakubK’s comment on: The next decades might be wild
Technology causing unemployment is a concern as old as the Industrial Revolution and yet has never been born out.

It creates so many new jobs you cannot fathom. Imagine explaining the job of an SEO consultant to someone in 1990.

Makes me think of Wal Mart. They went to mostly self-checkout (which is awesome). Did they lay off a bunch of cashiers? Heck no. They just launched curbside (also awesome). Joe Schmos like me now have personal shoppers! Thanks to technology.

I think AI would have to be delivering an era of radical abundance before jobs somehow began disappearing, and then, by definition, you wouldn’t need a job anymore.