This question (Jan 29), your comment (Feb 4)… I think many things changed now (Sep 16)
I think there is much more written material and much more understanding about the metacrisis.
It is clear to me that it exists.
I think that your approach of enumerating the factors “underlying drivers of the multiple anthropogenic existential threats” does not give the justive. The whole concept of metacrisis is that they are interconnected and need to be adressed as whole.
I do not see metacrisis as pessimistic.
I see metacrisis as accurately describing the state of the current affairs.
There are so many recent events that gave me hope:
Extinction Rebellion, global decentralized movement
COVID, radical change is possible
Elon Musk buying Twitter, freedom of speech, global town hall
Perennial rice
Nuclear fusion
Patent US4394230A for splitting water molecules into hydrogen (it’s about changing the structure of water, 1 unit of energy in, more than 1 units of energy out)
LK99 superconductor (debunked but surely it will inspire next wave of research)
The worse it gets, the more willing to change. So I have always hope by default.
EDIT: I’m replying to this comment many months later. Metacrisis is relatively new, back in January there were not that much written resources. The concept is / was relatively new.
•••••
(from the perspective of time) there is enough material about metacrisis / polycrisis / everything crisis, there is no need for yet another sythesis.
The diagram below comes from World Economic Forum The Global Risks Report 2023
Direct link: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_Report_2023.pdf
Worth noting that “metacrisis” and “polycrisis” are pretty much the same term, I actually prefer “meta” to emphasis the interconnectedness, as opposed to just a number.
I had to google the word “sus”. What makes you think so? What do you find “sus” about it?
I came to this post by searching for “Metacrisis”.
I genuinely believe that Metacrisis is the underlying mechanism / generator function / incentive (or pervert incentive) affecting loads of existential / catasthropic risks.
A new video just dropped:
The talk literally has “global catastrophic risks” on the title slide.
I think that EA (Give Well, Open Philanthropy) focus too much on one metric such as DALY, without appreciating the interconnectedness and the fact that many things are difficult to measure using a single metric.
Previously I was chatting with GPT4.
To have more diverse opinions, this time I was chatting with Bard.
I would genuinely appreciate more human eyeballs and brains finding holes in what I’ve created, handy link to the blog: https://mirror.xyz/0x315f80C7cAaCBE7Fb1c14E65A634db89A33A9637/ETK6RXnmgeNcALabcIE3k3-d-NqOHqEj8dU1_0J6cUg
Bard was kind to me with praise but this is not something I was looking for. I was looking for CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.
Finding holes would be better, otherwise I may accidentally think that I’ve figured something important.
Funny that you mention that.
“just skimmed it enough”
I thought / I assumed that is the default state these days?
That’s why starting from the TLDR summary. I even explained why I use this style of writing—writing for the internet.
(the original post was in continous format, the pagination happens only when “save as PDF”)
The logic—if the summary is good enough then those interested in the content will skim it and maybe even read it. I also use headers so the table of contents is created, allowing to navigate to the relevant parts.
(from the time perspective it would be better to put the disclaimers and conflict of interest clauses towards the end, at the time I was thinking it provides a neat introduction and background)
For avoidance of the doubt—my intention is to highlight:
cultural issues
filter bubble
echo chamber
To reiterate:
initial feedback “too simple”—made it more detailed
subsequent feedback “too complex”—made it simpler
But then:
“I have an overall policy of not reading it in enough detail to make the call.”
“I concretely do not expect to approve a version of the current post as your first post.”
I guess it was a game over, but I tried anyway with posting in the open thread that got me banned.
I think I was expected to make a simpler post about somethign else to unlock my account, that would enable me to post the original thing?
Sounds overcomplicated. I didn’t have much interest in producing something random just to unlock my account, the AI alignment metric was the primary objective.
I’ve submitted the link to Hacker News (to faciliate comments) and some other AI adjacent communities because:
critical feedback
constructive criticism
meaningful discussion
crowdsourcing brainpower
figuring out fail scenarios
And until we figure out a better defintion / metric / alignment I suggest we stick to LIFE as a good starting point.
Thank you.
“very hard to follow”—honest, genuine feedback.
That’s why when posting on my own blog I simplified and preserved the Less Wrong version as PDF as link at the bottom. I’m nicely suprised that you took the effort to read it. Now as I look at it I agree—the order of paragraphs could be better and some tangental / background / rabbit hole information removed.
All the feedback can be addressed / acted upon. If I received such feedback I would surely simplify, make some edits.
It was the “overall policy of not reading it in enough detail” that made me think about culture / diversity / echo chamber / filter bubble / confirmation bias.
First instinctive intuitive reaction—because it is not so easy, not so obvious how to measure, evaluate, quantify.
I actually posted a few days ago—https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/xNyd8SuTzsScXc7KB/measuring-impact-ea-bias-towards-numbers—I made a hypothesis (based on own observations and face-to-face conversations) that there is a bias towards easily quantifiable projects.
It makes me genuinely curious why I’m receiving negative votes.
I understand that my perspective is limited. I would like to broaden my perspective. −1 or −2 is not a very telling signal.
Is it because of the content?
Is it because of the form factor?
This was a linkpost—linking to the blog (blockchain based publishing platform, less likely to be cancelled)
I genuinely believe that ENDING WAR would be in the best interest of humanity and the strategy of claiming mental health issue, disputed land in international jurisdiction, potentially even “breadbasket for the world” due to fertile soil: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernozem
I notice a pattern, often my proposals / ideas / suggestions are downvoted, for example here: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/a/24170/14546
Another project that was in the planning phase 100 years ago. I know it is big, I know many things would need to align, I know there is no obvious financing model but I really hope to inspire and showcase ideas that are outside of the mainstream.
In this particular example—I genuinely feel EA is biased towards easily quantifiable projects. Building “Great African Railway” has so many 2nd 3rd 4th order effects—difficult task to quantify. I also described some other impactful projects that make intuitive sense but not instantly obvious how to measure impact.
Overall—I would love to receive feedback (why downvotes) and connect with others who think similar. Big impactful projects, not just spreadsheets and numbers.
The blog post describes the potential impact and difficulties of accurate evaluation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_to_Cairo_Railway
So this just happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Nigerien_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
And in the media reporting they said “Mali and Burkina Faso also experienced coup since 2020”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Malian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2022_Burkina_Faso_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
I genuinely believe that stability brings prosperity, no sane business would invest in such countries.
Something new dropped: https://twitter.com/FLIxrisk/status/1646539796527951872
Direct link to the policy: https://futureoflife.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/FLI_Policymaking_In_The_Pause.pdf
My reply: https://twitter.com/marsxrobertson/status/1646583463493992462
I’m deeply in “don’t trust verify” camp.
Climate change is for real and we need to cut the emissions anyway.
My assumption is: “it takes computer power to train the AI”
“Data centres are estimated to be responsible for up to 3% of global electricity consumption today and are projected to touch 4% by 2030.”—https://datacentremagazine.com/articles/efficiency-to-loom-large-for-data-centre-industry-in-2023
A little bit more explanation / inspiration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Another inspiration: https://earthbound.report/2018/01/15/elinor-ostroms-8-rules-for-managing-the-commons/
Humans. Health. Mental Heath. Happiness. Wellbeing. Nature. Environment.
Buying us enough time to figure out what’s next...
I guess there are not that many AI ethicists: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/5LNxeWFdoynvgZeik/nobody-s-on-the-ball-on-agi-alignment
What is the Shelling Point? This Forum? Less Wrong? Stack Overflow? Reddit? Some Twitter hashtag: https://twitter.com/marsxrobertson/status/1642235852997681153
AI may actually know what are the good principles 🤣
TLDR: more practical applications of existing research.
I think that these days everything competes for attention (“attention economy”).
I think that popularising existing research and funding new—can go side by side.
But I wonder if the EA movement is allocating nearly enough money to new RCTs and program evaluations, or to R&D more broadly, so as to build out new evidence in a strategic way.
I’m more on the practical side, implementing what we know so far.
Just like a brilliant product—will it go to market organically or will require a marketing push? Same analogy is applicable to research—more mainstream attention, popularisation, impact, getting on Joe Rogan and Lex Fridman, that in turn can provide more funds and interest to fund new research.
Overall it seems it is a balance—more new research will naturally trigger more new high quality research and more new real-life implications.
Another benefit I can think of—INDEPENDENCE—whenever something is sponsored by someone I wonder about incentives and spheres of influence.
TLDR: not just economic development and lifting out of poverty but a broader perspective of CLIMATE EMERGENCY and forced migration.
**********
I need to compliment the level of detail 👍
Apologies if my reply is not as detailed, I just want to cover a few points that stood out to me.
I support the thesis of the Deep Adaptation movement—inevitable near-term social collapse.
I collect links to various extreme weather events, most recently in Iran:
50C (120F)
no water
people on the streets
police firing shots
casualties
#InternetShutdown trending on Twitter
Check this video by Amnesty International: https://twitter.com/greeneniigma/status/1420383736730947586
Related: https://refugeecities.org/
“We think it is unlikely that charter cities will be more cost-effective than GiveWell top charities in terms of directly improving wellbeing.”
“We don’t believe that charter cities are a cost-effective method to lift individuals out of poverty directly.”
Improving well-being and lifting out of poverty—maybe not.
(malaria, mosquito nets, experimentation with price point that won the Nobel Prize in Economics recently to Esther Duflo)
Climate change and environmental migrants—maybe yes.
Global cooperation and governance at scale.
CO2 efficient building technology (during construction and lifespan for heating and cooling)
Check XPRIZE “Future of Housing”:
How many governments are willing to cede enough authority to create a charter city and how might this change over time?
Currently, there are around 200 sovereign states with a United Nations mandate.
I suggest Kazakhstan:
loads of land
religious balance (mostly Islam and 20% Christianity)
open to Bitcoin mining (forward-thinking government)
precedent of cosmodrome Baikonur leased to Russian Space Agency
Russians are building a new cosmodrome—https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostochny_Cosmodrome—Baikonur might be available for sale?
The mission was declared a failure after telemetry was lost and the rocket re-entered the atmosphere due to the Fregat upper stage being programmed for a launch from Baikonur rather than the new Vostochny Cosmodrome.
Overall, I believe that Charter Cities is a political problem, not a technical problem.
Technology is there. Capital is there. Critical mass is there. Entrepreneurs are there. Now need to find a country that would like to invite entrepreneurs and capital.
😎
PS. Really great piece. Comprehensive. I will read it again and connect with various organizations mentioned here.
1️⃣ Timing
You’ve asked this question 29th Jan.
This video dropped 31th Jan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv_xBK_XZjw
I joined the Metacrisis working group in March… It takes a while for meme / term / awareness to spread.
Today is 16th Sep and I see massive uptick in awareness.
2️⃣ Metrics
EA and OpenPhilanthropy and GiveWell seem to be operating using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability-adjusted_life_year
A lot of metacrisis-related activities do not have clearly defined metrics.
Example of a project I’m personally involved: https://tellthetruth.media/ - I want media to tell the truth. Information, not entertainment. But I genuinely do not know how to measure it.
Same with: https://planetarycouncil.org
I think that I’ve figured out a recipe, “great reset but on our terms”, an agreeable plan how to change the world, absolutely no controversy in any of these points. It starts on top: “education, sensemaking, unifying narrative and media telling the truth”. Again, no clearly defined metrics.
If I may—honest, authentic, genuine opinion—UNIFYING NARRATIVE is absolutely essential, that’s why EDUCATION and SENSEMAKING. You can see these as “trifecta”, one cannot exist without another, education without sensemaking is propaganda. Unifying narrative because we need to solve “Moloch” and coordination failure.