Milan_Griffes
QRI = the Qualia Research Institute
80k wubstepping all night long
“All 3,400 hours of Rationality: From AI to Zombies”
Speedcore EDM R:A2Z will be the background soundtrack at the Schelling Point Temple of EA Burning Man.
24⁄7 baby.
Big +1
An 80k podcast dubstep house party actually sounds like a good time.… BURNING MAN OF THE NERDS!!!!
Robbie Wib-wib-wib-wibibiblin in da HAUS!!!!!!!!
lol DiarrhEA Eradication
+1 makes sense.
Consider Puritanism. Pursed. The Purge...
New Cause Area: Programmatic Mettā
Saying “80k tracks the # of calls and # of career plan changes, but doesn’t track the long-run impacts of their advisees” is different from saying “80k focus[es] mainly on # of calls”
I expanded a bit on this question here.
Ben Hoffman & Holden Karnofsky
Sexy.
Thank you for this feedback.
From my perspective, I’m writing both for my own sake and for others.
Yes, I want people to think about this for themselves. (I don’t think that’s esoteric.)
What about my style stands out as esoteric?
(From my perspective, I’m trying to be as clear & straightforward as possible in the main body of each post. I am also using poetic quotes at the top of some of the posts.)
“Where do you get the impression that they focus mainly on # of calls?”
I don’t have this impression. From the original post:80,000 Hours tracking the number of advising calls they make and the number of career plan changes they catalyze, rather than the long-run impacts their advisees are having in the world.
It would be interesting to see a cohort analysis of 80k advisees by year, looking at what each advisee from each cohort has accomplished out in the world in the following years.Maybe that already exists? I haven’t seen it, if so.
“Opening with a strong claim, making your readers scroll through a lot of introductory text, and ending abruptly with “but I don’t feel like justifying my point in any way, so come up with your own arguments” is not a very good look on this forum. “
I wasn’t intending the text included in the post to be introductory...
”[I have read the entirety of The Inner Ring, but not the vast series of apparent prerequisite posts to this one. I would be very surprised if reading them caused me to disagree with the points in this comment, though.]”
If you don’t want to read the existing work that undergirds this post, why should I expect further writing to change your mind about the topic?
Where are all the comments, indeed...
”I advise you to withdraw this post, cut out half the narrative crap, add some evidence and a model, make a recommendation, then repost it.”
I think this is basically fair, though from my perspective the narrative crap is doing important work.
I have limited capacity these days so I’m writing this argument as a serial, posting it as I can find the time.
In the meanwhile, this sequence from a few years ago (a) makes a similar argument following the form you suggest.
I don’t think we yet are collectively wise enough to engage in memetic and/or tech projects that undermine evolutionary equilibria, fwiw.