I think restraining deployment would reduce the rate of improvement in peak AI capability in the world, via reduced funding. Do you think otherwise? How does that work?
Is it 1. restraining deployment won’t reduce funding, or 2. restraining deployment would reduce funding, but reduced funding won’t reduce the rate of improvement, or 3. restraining deployment would reduce funding, and reduced funding would reduce the rate of improvement, but still the whole argument doesn’t work for reason X?
On how sushi became popular in the United States, I found New York Times’ The Untold Story of Sushi in America to be a fascinating read.
Speaking for myself, I found Open Philanthropy’s investigation of Climate Change pretty convincing. Maybe we should publicize it more and see which part people find unconvincing?
This assumes nuclear weapon caused Japan to surrender, and without nuclear weapon Japan would not have surrendered. Such assumption is plausible but by no means certain.
For people unfamiliar with this debate, I consider Debate over the Japanese Surrender a good introduction.
“Ineffective” school usually means school that is ineffective for learning, but I think school that is ineffective for learning can be effective in other ways, for example effective in providing daycare services to parents.
In that case, I think an effective thing to do is to plan transition from existing schools to daycare centers, eliminating teaching and focusing on caring. One could destroy all schools and build daycare centers instead, and destroying all schools has emotional appeal to me, but transitioning is probably cheaper.
I agree strategic coal reserve sounds promising, especially for being aligned with coal miners.
One reason to prefer buying coal mines to mined coal is that mines can act as storage. How much does it cost to store coal? Pile of coal sounds like a fire hazard, for example.
The author commented elsewhere that it took at least 50 hours.