Would you say that, almost 4 years later, we’ve made progress on that front?
markov_user
Karma: 399
Köln does have a somewhat active local group currently (see here https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/groups/6BpGMKtfmC2XLeih8 ) - I think they mostly coordinate via Signal, which interestingly is hidden behind the “Join us on Slack” button on the forum page. Don’t think this had much to do with this post though.
I’m not aware of anything having happened in Dortmund or the general Ruhrgebiet in the last year or so, with the exception of the Doing Good Together Düsseldorf group.
why restarting your device works to solve problems, but it does (yes, I did look it up, so no need to explain it
I’m now stuck in “I think I know a decent metaphor but you don’t want me to share it” land… but then maybe I’ll just share it for other people. :P
Basically it’s less about how computers work on any technical level, and more about which state they’re in. Imagine you want to walk to your favorite store. If you’re at home, you probably know the way by heart and can navigate there reliably. But now imagine you’ve been up for a while and have been walking around for hours following some semi-random commands from different people. And by following all these unrelated commands, you’ve now ended up doing a handstand on some hill next to a lake on the opposite end of town, where you’ve never been before. It can easily happen now that, from that weird state, going to the store close to your home will not work out and you get stuck somewhere. Restarting the computer is basically the same as teleporting home. It’s in a well defined, clean, predictable state again, where you know that most of the usual day to day actions can be performed reliably. And the longer it’s running without restart, the more chances it has to, in one way or another, get into a state that makes it fail at certain tasks you want it to do.
Productivity, perfectionism, and self-leadership increased in the correspondingly themed groups.
I guess “increased” here should be “improved”? Unless perfectionism actually increased as well, but this would seem like a surprising outcome. :)
On the one hand yes, but on the other hand it seems crucial to at least mention these observer effects (edit: probably the wrong term, rather anthropic principle). There’s a somewhat thin line between asking “why haven’t we been wiped out?” and using the fact that we haven’t been wiped out yet as evidence that this kind of scenario is generally unlikely. Of course it makes sense to discuss the question, but the “real” answer could well be “random chance” without having further implications about the likelihood of power-seeking AGI.
Highly agree with the post. I discussed almost the same thing with a friend during the conference. Basically, the typical “don’t attend talks, most of them are recorded and you can just watch them online later” advice isn’t great imho—it seems like a fake alternative to me, in the sense that you miss out on a talk because you tell yourself “ah I’ll just watch it later”, but in probably >90% of cases this just won’t happen. So the actual alternative you’re choosing is not “watch online later”, but “don’t watch at all”. Because by the time the talk is online, you’ll have forgotten about it, and even if you remember it, just deciding to watch a 30 minute talk at home on your own requires a lot more activation energy to overcome than, in comparison, the act of just walking to another room while you are at a conference.
Indeed 1-1s will be more valuable most of the time for most people, and it’s important to make this point to first-timers who otherwise might fill their schedule with talks and workshop. But if there’s a talk or two or three that are especially relevant to you, there’s a strong case to be made that you should attend it. Even if you’re sure that you would indeed watch it online later, it may still be worth attending merely for hearing the talk a few months sooner than you otherwise would.
Plus, you can also schedule virtual 1-1s with people after the conference, so it’s not necessarily that you’re missing out on anything. (and I’d argue a “hey, my schedule is pretty packed, would you be available for a zoom call some time next week?” message to an actual person will yield a much higher chance of actually happening than a vague “yeah I’ll probably watch this talk online at some point!” intention)
Side note: I’ve read the post on pocket first, and it simply omitted section 7 without any hint of its existence. Wonder if that happens more frequently.
As for the post itself, I do agree with most of it. I think though that it (particularly point 1) has some risk of reinforcing some people’s perception of reaching out to well known people as a potential status violation, which I think is already quite common in EA (although I know of some people who would disagree with me on this). I would guess most people already have a tendency to “not waste important people’s time” (whatever “important” means to them) and rather err on the side of avoiding these people and e.g. not ask for a 1-1 at a conference even though they might benefit greatly from it. To make it short, I agree quite strongly with your point 7, but not so much with (the general vibe of) point 1.
The recent push for productization is making everyone realize that alignment is a capability. A gaslighting chatbot is a bad chatbot compared to a harmless helpful one. As you can see currently, the world is phasing out AI deployment, fixing the bugs, then iterating.
While that’s one way to look at it, another way is to notice the arms race dynamics and how every major tech company is now throwing LLMs into the public head over heels even when they stil have some severe flaws. Another observation is that e.g. OpenAI’s safety efforts are not very popular among end users, given that in their eyes these safety measures make the systems less capable/interesting/useful. People tend to get irritated when their prompt is answered with “As a language model trained by OpenAI, I am not able to <X>”, rather than feeling relief over being saved from a dangerous output.
As for your final paragraph, it is easy to say “<outcome X> is just one ouf of infinite possibilities”, but you’re equating trajectories with outcomes. The existence of infinite possibilities doesn’t really help when there’s a systematic reason that causes many or most of them to have human extinction as an outcome. Whether this is actually the case or not is of course an open and hotly debated question, but just claiming “it’s just a single point on the x axis so the probability mass must be 0″ is surely not how you get closer to an actual answer.
why the overemphasis/obsession on doom scenario?
Because it is extremely important that we do what we can to avoid such a scenario. I’m glad that e.g. airlines still invest a lot in improving flight safety and preventing accidents even though flying is already the safest way of traveling. Humanity is basically at this very moment boarding a giant AI-rplane that is about to take off for the very first time, and I’m rather happy there’s a number of people out there looking at the possible worst case and doing their best to figure out how we can get this plane safely off the ground rather than saying “why are people so obsessed with the doom scenario? A plane crash is just one out of infinite possibilities, we’re gonna be fine!”.
it’s not AI, more code completion with crowd-sourced code
Copilot is based on GPT3, so imho it is just as much AI or not AI as ChatGPT is. And given it’s pretty much at the forefront of currently available ML technology, I’d be very inclined to call it AI, even if it’s (superficially) limited to the use case of completing code.
Looks very helpful, thank you Karla. :)
This seems like a very cool project, thanks for sharing! I agree that this type of project can be considered a “moonshot”, which implies that most of the potential impact lies in the tail end of possible outcomes. Consequently the estimated become very tricky. If the EV is dominated by a few outlier scenarios, reality will most likely turn out to be underwhelming.
I’m not sure if one can really make a good case that working on such a game is worthwhile from an impact perspective. But looking at the state of things and the community as a whole, it does still seem preferable to me that somebody somewhere puts some significant effort into EA games (sorry for the pun).
Also, to add one possible path to impact this might enable: it might be yet another channel to deliberately nudge people into in order to expose them to the key EA ideas in an entertaining way (HPMOR being another such example). So your players might not all end up being “random people”, but a ratio of them might be preselected in a way.
Lastly, it seems like at least 5-10 people (and probably considerably more) in EA are interested or involved in game development. I’m not familiar of any way in which this group is currently connected—would probably be worth doing so. Maybe something low on overhead such as a Signal group would work as a start?
Sometimes I think that this is the purpose of EA. To attempt to be the “few people” to believe consequentialism in a world where commonsense morality really does need to change due to a rapidly changing world. But we should help shift commonsense morality in a better direction, not spread utilitarianism.
Very interesting perspective and comment in general, thanks for sharing!
Very good argument imo! It shows there’s a different explanation rather than “people don’t really care about dying embryos” that can be derived from this comparison. People tend to differentiate between what happens “naturally” (or accidentally) vs deliberate human actions. When it comes to wild animal suffering, even if people believe it exists, many will think something along the lines of “it’s not human-made suffering, so it’s not our moral responsibility to do something about it”—which is weird to a consequentialist, but probably quite intuitive for most people.
It takes a few non-obvious steps in reasoning to get to the conclusion that we should care about wild animal suffering. And while fewer steps may be required in the embryo situation, it is still very conceivable that a person who actually cares a lot about embryos might not initially get to the conclusion that the scope of the problem exceeds abortion.
This seems very useful! Thank you for the summaries. Some thoughts:
having this available as a podcast (read by a human) would be cool
at one point you hinted at happenings in the comments (regarding GiveWell), this generally seems like a good idea. Maybe in select cases it would make sense to also summarize on a very high level what discussions are going on beneath a post.
this sentence is confusing to me: “Due to this, he concludes the cause area is one of the most important LT problems and primarily advises focusing on other risks due to neglectedness.”—is it missing a “not”?
given this post has >40 upvotes now, I’m looking forward to reading the summary of it next week :)
Flow and distribution of information (inside EA, and in general)
how to structure and present information to make it as easily digestible as possible (e.g. in blog posts or talks/presentations)
A bit less pressing maybe, but I’d also be interested in seeing some (empirical) research on polyamory and how it affects people. It appears to be rather prevalent in rationality & EA, and I know many people who like it, and also people who find it very difficult and complicated.
My personal answers are 1. yes and 2. yes.
Sort of, so firstly I have a field next to each prediction that automatically computes its “bucket number” (which is just
FLOOR(<prediction> * 10)). To then get the average probability of a certain bucket, I run the following:=AVERAGE(INDEX(FILTER(C$19:K, K$19:K=A14), , 1))- note that this is google sheets though and I’m not sure to which degree this transfers to Excel. For context, column C contains my predicted probabilities, column K contains the computed bucket numbers, and A14 here is the bucket for which I’m computing this. Similarly I count the number of predictions of a given bucket with=ROWS(FILTER(K$19:K, K$19:K<>"", K$19:K=A14))and the ratio of predictions in that bucket that ended up true with=COUNTIF(FILTER(D$19:K, K$19:K=A14), "=1") / D14(D19 onwards contains 1 and 0 values depending on if the prediction happened or not; D14 is the aforementioned number of predictions in that bucket).If this doesn’t help, let me know and I can clear up one such spreadsheet, see if I can export it as xlsx file and send it to you.
Thanks for sharing! I’ve had the feeling for a while that it would be great if EA managed to make goals/projects/activities of people (/organizations) more transparent to each other. E.g. when I’m working on some EA project, it would be great if other EAs who might be interested in that topic would know about it. Yet there are no good ways that I’m aware of to even share such information. So I certainly like the direction you’re taking here.
I guess one risk would be that, however easy to use the system is, it is still overhead for people to have their projects and goals reflected there. Unless it happens to be their primary/only project management system (which however would be very hard to achieve).
Another risk could be that people use it at first, but don’t stick to it very long, leading to a lot of stale information in the system, making it hard to rely on even for highly engaged people.
I guess you could ask two related questions. Firstly, let’s call it “easy mode”: assuming the network existed as imagined, and most people in EA were in fact using this system as intended—would an additional person that first learns of it start using it in the same productive way?
And secondly, in a more realistic situation where very few people are actively using it, would it then make sense for any single additional person to start using it, share their goals and projects, keep things up to date persistently, probably with quite a bit of overhead on their part because it would happen on top of their actual project management system?
I think it’s great to come up with ideas about e.g. “the best possible version EA Hub” and just see what comes out, even though it’s hard to come up with ideas that would answer both above questions positively. Which is why improving the EA Hub generally seems more promising to me than building any new type of network, as at least you’d be starting with a decent user base and would take away the hurdles of “signing up somewhere” and “being part of multiple EA related social networks”.
So long story short, I quite like your approach and the depth of your mock-up/prototype, and think it could work as inspiration for EA Hub to a degree. Have my doubts that it would be worthwhile actually building something new just to try the concept. Except maybe creating a rough interactive prototype (e.g. paper prototype or “click dummy”), and playing it through with a few EAs, which might be worthwhile to learn more about it.
I’d be up for the reading and comment writing part (will see if it works out time-wise), probably not so much for zoom. Nice idea and thanks for taking the initiative!
Note that A or B decisions are often false dichotomies, and you may be overlooking alternative options that combine the advantages. So narrowing in on given options too soon may sometimes be a mistake, and it can be useful to try to come up with more alternatives.
Also, in my experience many of the decisions I get stuck with fall somewhere between 2 and 3: I know their implications and have most of the information, but the results differ on various dimensions. E.g. option 1 is safe and somewhat impactful, while option 2 is potentially higher impact but much riskier and comes at the cost of disappointing somebody you care about. I’m not sure to what degree a decision doc is suitable for these types of problems in particular—but I’ve at least had a few cases where friends came up with some helpful way to reframe the situation that led to a valuable insight.
(But I should mention I definitely see your point that many EAs may be overthinking some of their decisions—though even then I personally wouldn’t feel comfortable in case of value conflicts to just flip a coin. But in many other cases I agree that getting to any decision quickly rather then getting stuck in decision paralysis is a good approach.)