DirectedEvolution

Karma: 3,580

DirectedEvolution Mar 18, 2023, 5:54 AM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: RomanHauksson’s comment on: Getting Better at Writing: Why and How
Have you already done some searching for articles on the subject? There’s a ton of content on this subject already. What have you tried already? What are you struggling with?

DirectedEvolution Mar 13, 2023, 8:00 PM
4 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Vasco Grilo🔸’s comment on: Bill prohibiting the use of QALYs in US healthcare decisions?
Interesting! Do you think that is a common view? And do you think that federal healthcare policy should be made by somehow tapping into commonsense moral intuitions? Or should a winning, even if unpopular, argument determine policy options?

Edit: perhaps we can value QALYs on the principle that we’re unlikely to be able to accurately track all contributors to total ETHU in practice, but having people maintain physical health is probably an important contributor to it in practice. Physical health has positive externalities that go beyond subjective well-being and therefore we should value it in setting healthcare policy.

DirectedEvolution Mar 13, 2023, 2:58 PM
4 points
0 ∶ 1
in reply to: Vasco Grilo🔸’s comment on: Bill prohibiting the use of QALYs in US healthcare decisions?
This is getting into philosophical territory, so here’s a thought experiment. Let’s say you’d lost your legs. You had to choose between a $10 pill that instantly regrew your legs and restored your subjective well-being, and a $0 pill that only corrected any loss in subjective well-being from having lost your legs. Do you really choose the well-being only pill in this case?

DirectedEvolution Mar 12, 2023, 8:56 PM
6 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Vasco Grilo🔸’s comment on: Bill prohibiting the use of QALYs in US healthcare decisions?
WELLBYs are proposed in the doc you link as a measure specifically for non-heath and non-pecuniary measures. QALYs take subjective well-being into account, along with physical health metrics through the psychological component of HRQoL, so a shift to WELLBYs in this context just excludes the physical health component of QALYs in pricing physical health interventions.

DirectedEvolution Mar 12, 2023, 8:47 PM
6 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Bill prohibiting the use of QALYs in US healthcare decisions?
If it makes you feel any better, 90-95% of bills are never passed into law.

DirectedEvolution Mar 11, 2023, 7:33 PM
6 points
1 ∶ 0
on: How my community successfully reduced sexual misconduct
We established a policy that established members, especially members of the executive, were to refrain from hitting on or sleeping with people in their first year at the society. This means that people get a chance to settle in and form friendships. And if an incident does occur, it’s no longer a case of the word of an experienced member vs someone nobody knows, it’s now your old friend Bob vs your new friend Alice. Alice is more likely to be believed, and more likely to actually tell people about the incident: the newcomer will often just leave, assuming that misconduct is the norm.
Can you clarify how this worked in a little more detail? I understand the spirit of the policy, and it seems good. What if a newcomer hits on an old timer, and what were the consequences if an old timer hit on a newcomer? Or was this more of an honor code and cultural norm than a formal rules-and-consequences approach?

DirectedEvolution Mar 6, 2023, 6:58 AM
4 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Larks’s comment on: Advice on communicating in and around the biosecurity policy community
It’s important to keep in mind that while money laundering is typically carried out by profit-seeking criminals who take advantage of complex financial transactions to hide their illegal activities, GoF research is not driven by financial gain. Therefore, we need to consider the unique nature of GoF research when assessing the need for regulation.
It’s not just a matter of how much regulation is in place, but also about finding a balance between the pressures to engage in the research and a regulatory framework that effectively manages any potential risks. If there’s an inadequate regulatory apparatus in place relative to the pressures to participate, then the field is “underregulated.” Conversely, if there’s too much regulation, the field may be at risk of becoming “overregulated.”
Given the significant risks associated with GoF research, it requires a high level of regulation compared to other public service research areas that have similarly limited pressures to participate. However, because profit is not a driving force, the field can only tolerate a certain amount of regulation before participation becomes difficult.
Rather than focusing on increasing regulation dramatically or maintaining the status quo, we should look to refine and improve regulation for GoF research. While some scope exists to tighten regulations, excessive regulation could stifle the field altogether, which may or may not be desirable. If we wish the field to continue while enhancing the risk-benefit ratio, our focus should be on regulating the field proportionately to the pressures to participate.
It’s time to shift the discussion from “how regulated is the field” to “how regulated is the field relative to the pressures to participate.” By doing so, we can strike a balance between promoting the field’s progress and ensuring appropriate risk management.

DirectedEvolution Mar 5, 2023, 10:26 PM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Larks’s comment on: Advice on communicating in and around the biosecurity policy community
That’s a helpful reframing, thank you. I think there is still a disconnect between the two cases, however. As money laundering is a crime, companies have a relatively simple task before them: to identify and eliminate money laundering.
By contrast, GoF research is not a crime, and the objective, from a “responsibly pro-GoF” point of view, is to improve the risk/reward ratio to an acceptable level. A company would be likely to be highly conservative in making these judgments, as they would capture none of the benefits of successful and informative GoF research, but would be punished for allowing overly risky or failed GoF research to go forward. In other words, companies would likely refuse to sell to GoF research entirely in order to minimize or eliminate their risk.
The problem is even more acute if the work of evaluating GoF research was foisted onto companies. Scientists might be motivated by curiosity, altruism, or a desire for scientific credit, so there is at least some reward to be had even if GoF research were much more stringently regulated. By contrast, regulating companies in the manner you propose would come with no incentive whatsoever for companies to sell to GoF research, thus effectively banning it.

DirectedEvolution Mar 5, 2023, 7:02 AM
6 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Larks’s comment on: Advice on communicating in and around the biosecurity policy community
This is a perfectly reasonable point to bring up, and I agree that we should critically consider whether or not policy and regulation in the field is adequate. I want to emphasize some ways that high-risk biological research differs from finance, nuclear weapons, and money laundering.
- First, people don’t do gain of function research (or whatever we ought to call it) for profit, so imposing gigantic fines, the threat of jail time, and constant severe scrutiny would be tantamount to banning it outright. Likewise, private companies are pursuing profits when they build nuclear weapons. Medicine is, of course, heavily regulated, and once again it is the profit motive that allows the industry to thrive even in such a heavily regulated context.
- Soldiers operating and maintaining nuclear weapons have given permission for the military to exert extremely intrusive control over their activities. Some of the best and brightest scientists worked for the military as an act of patriotic service to build the nuclear bomb during WWII. However, the Manhattan Project was aimed at a specific engineering outcome, while GoF research would be an ongoing effort with no “definition of done,” and it might be hard to convince an adequate number of high-quality scientists to sign up for such strict controls if it was for their entire careers.
- Money laundering is a crime, so it is not “regulated” but policed. Nobody but terrorists would do gain of function research if it was illegal.
For a person who’d like to see gain of function research banned, any move to regulate it and punish violations would be a step in the right direction. However, those who’d like to enforce responsible behavior, perhaps by using regulations on part with those you describe, have to explain how they’d motivate already-beleaguered scientists to do GoF research when their proposal is “even more stick, still no carrot.”
I’m curious to know whether and to what extent we’ve considered ways to reward basic science researchers for making pandemic-mitigating discoveries in a public health context. Is there a way we can reward people for achieving the maximum public health benefit with the minimum risk in their research?

DirectedEvolution Feb 16, 2023, 6:18 AM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
on: AllAmericanBreakfast’s Shortform
I’m going to be exiting the online EA community for an indefinite period of time. Anyone who’d like to keep in touch is free to PM me and I’ll provide my personal contact info when I check my messages occasionally. Best wishes.

DirectedEvolution Feb 15, 2023, 4:21 AM
3 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Sam Battis’s comment on: There can be highly neglected solutions to less-neglected problems
I think this is a totally reasonable argument, and you can add a piece that’s about personal fit. Like 80,000 hours has pretty arbitrarily guesstimated how heavily one ought to weigh personal fit in career choice, slapped some numbers on it and published it in a prioritization scale that people take too seriously sometimes and doesn’t actually make sense if you actually look at what some of the numbers imply (ie everybody should work on AI safety even if an actively bad fit).

But if you start by weighing personal fit more highly, there becomes a case for saying “ok, I happen to care a lot about climate change, so even if it’s not the highest priority cause, it’s still what I personally ought to work on. And I need guidance about how to move the needle on climate change.” And if you start from there you can still do a whole EA solutions prioritization analysis just taking for granted that it will be 100% climate change focused.

Personally I suspect that’s a good solution—we have great ideas about how to prioritize stuff but I’m not very optimistic about our ability to fundamentally change what causes people work on. Like maybe people should work on AI x risk even if they’re an actively bad fit, but they won’t, and we shouldn’t waste time trying to convince them to. Instead we should just create a great on-ramp for people who are interested in AI safety and a second great on-ramp for people who are interested in climate change. Figure out where people are and are not flexible in what they work on and target that.

DirectedEvolution Feb 14, 2023, 4:07 AM
3 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Sam Battis’s comment on: There can be highly neglected solutions to less-neglected problems
Although I don’t necessarily endorse it, the argument against investing in new cause areas that aren’t a significant existential risk within a few decades is straightforward. Therefore, any cause prioritization project should address this objection with a counter-rebuttal, or else pessimism is warranted.

DirectedEvolution Feb 13, 2023, 4:32 PM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Erin’s comment on: Five ways to stop a bird->mink->human H5N1 pandemic
I think this would probably be worse from a legal perspective compared to simply requiring them. They would be admitting that they know there is a risk to workers, but not doing anything. Then, when a worker got sick, they could sue saying that the company had known there was a risk but hadn’t had proper safety procedures.
Asymmetric justice in action. What a bonkers outcome. Thanks for sharing.
I think you would want to give them nuisance vapor cartridges because they will get rid of the odor of mink manure which may increase compliance
Would this give them a plausible cover story for why they’re handing them out, such that it would not need to be framed as a “health measure?”

DirectedEvolution Feb 11, 2023, 6:54 PM
5 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Erich_Grunewald 🔸’s comment on: Five ways to stop a bird->mink->human H5N1 pandemic
OK, on further exploration, I am ~~way~~ somewhat more optimistic about shutting down the industry than I was at first, and the paranoia and insularity of fur producers makes me much more pessimistic than before about engineered biosafety improvements at fur farms, at least in Western countries. I wouldn’t be surprised if the situation is quite a bit different in authoritarian regimes like China and Russia, where I bet there’s much less animal liberation activity and, in China at least, a lot more state capacity to crack down on biohazardous practices (although perhaps China would be willing to either ban the trade or use propaganda to sanction the wearing of fur).

DirectedEvolution Feb 11, 2023, 4:14 PM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Peter Wildeford’s comment on: Five ways to stop a bird->mink->human H5N1 pandemic
Yeah, that’s where I’d look next. I also linked to a proposed mink farm ban in the USA, although it got shut down pretty hard by lawmakers with mink farms in their states.

DirectedEvolution Feb 11, 2023, 3:01 PM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Jeff Kaufman 🔸’s comment on: Editable “Important, Tractable, Neglected” critiques review
Thanks!

DirectedEvolution Feb 11, 2023, 3:00 PM
4 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Peter Wildeford’s comment on: Five ways to stop a bird->mink->human H5N1 pandemic
My gut reaction is this is a map of the formerly low hanging fruit, now picked. My understanding is that most fur consumption is in China and Russia. China was willing to take extreme measures to try and suppress COVID, so maybe they’d be willing to shut down their fur trade to prevent an H5N1 pandemic? I feel pessimistic but I’m not sure why.

DirectedEvolution Feb 11, 2023, 3:50 AM
32 points
6 ∶ 0
on: There can be highly neglected solutions to less-neglected problems
Here’s a review of ITN critiques I put together a couple years ago. I just dumped it in an editable Google doc. It’s set up to alert me if anyone makes changes so I can import them into the main post.
I think the main issue is the conceptual distinction between a “cause” and an “intervention,” or what you’re calling here a “solution.” Originally, I think they were using ITN as a quick first-pass heuristic for considering different cause areas on the scale of “global health” or “X-risk.” But lots of people also use it to look at specific interventions. As you point out, it’s totally possible to find an ITN solution within a non-ITN cause area. I think the idea of applying ITN to cause areas is to find issues where there are a lot of ITN solutions to be found in a probabilistic sense.
One reason, I think, to be a little suspicious of a “neglected” solution in a non-neglected cause area is that there’s more reason to think the particular solution is neglected for a reason. That’s not an absolute, just a heuristic. For example, I’m in biotech, and I work with a particular technology for molecular recognition, called “aptamers.” I’m interviewing for a job at a startup that works with this technology. If you looked at them as an aptamer biosensor company, they have little-no competition. But if you look at them as an assay company, they face massive competition. Thiel makes this point eloquently in Zero to One. It’s important to be aware enough of the dimensions of the issue to understand when a potential solution is truly neglected versus when it’s just lost among a sea of alternatives.

DirectedEvolution Feb 11, 2023, 1:34 AM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Erin’s comment on: Five ways to stop a bird->mink->human H5N1 pandemic
Do you know if farms can incentivize workers to wear respirators without requiring them? For example offering a pay bump if the workers consistently do it?

DirectedEvolution Feb 11, 2023, 1:14 AM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Lizka’s comment on: H5N1 - thread for information sharing, planning, and action
I’m not sure exactly when it became clear that we’re having a bad bird flu year, but it’s possible the mink farm outbreak wasn’t that big an update for the forecasters who were already seeing lots of transmission to mammals, just not among them.