I don’t know why people keep downvoting my posts. I agree that they could be better, but I don’t think my post’s karma accurately reflects their worth. I am biased, however.
My name is Wes Reisen. I’m currently figuring out career stuff/life plans. I’m relatively new to the EA (I started interacting with it on July 12, 2023)
A common strategy used to limit the effects of human error it to better account for it in models and whatnot, often by coming up with a value system that would make sense for any given set of decisions where some of them are due to human error. For example, in economics, one might say that a person ascribes inherent additional value to things that are on sale.
A world leader’s goals are probably adjustable one way or another. In the case where a world leader is committed to some values that depend on something (e.g., whatever is seen as “patriotic”, whatever their religion says (this only applies to some religions), changing those things changes their values. That might be very difficult for some value systems, but luckily [a commitment to the values of something that can easily change] has plenty of good logical arguments against them (https://youtu.be/wRHBwxC8b8I), which could be a better strategy to change someone’s mind if they have such a commitment that is difficult to change, but for which one can change if they have such a commitment.
If anyone here knows any info that can help with this (e.g., Does any world leader have a commitment to their current values instead of their overall values?), please let me know in a comment, email, etc.
I imagine this would be implemented in a similar fashion ion to other UN programs when they started, but before that, we should work out key things that would change how or if the program should happen.
(Joke) This post lacks an epistemic status, and (not a joke) I’d say I don’t know where of these two positions I belong in. I haven’t had much success relative to others who are definitely EAs, and I’m pretty naive. People in Effective Altruism have actually unironically told me that I should sort of step aside until later on where I can contribute better, but I have so many ideas, and I imagine worst-case scenario of me posting them in the Effective Altruism anywhere slack channel is just people getting a bit annoyed at a bad idea. Also, some of my stuff has been at least a little good, which has been recognized, but do you have any thoughts?
Quick note: (Note taken while I am tired, so medium “parse-ability”): this program should be able to adjust to new ideas such that [an idea on how this program can be improved] can be implemented as soon as possible, perhaps without having to do an event. This is tricky for some ideas (e.g., how the event could be more fun). This would cause ideas to be implemented sooner, and also there’s be less of a cost to do the program sooner, since you wouldn’t be “missing” most important ideas. One idea that MIGHT satisfy this is: Part of the UN normal chat space (slack, discord, or whatever they use, if anything) was a philosophy section on what philosophy to go by and why, so the discussion can continue 24⁄7, and ideas for improvement can get implemented for the next day (or sooner).
Thanks! I’ll give it a read (or, more realistically, a listen if there’s an audiobook version.)
hello?
Do you think the video is missing any other important points that the book doesn’t?
I’m pretty sure that’s on my book list, but thanks anyways! I’d say I watched the equivelant of the “movie version” (which is missing some things; namely, it doesn’thave much on how easy it is to replace keys) https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs (Sorry if this comes off as passive aggressive; it isn’t. It’s passive.)
I’ll edit the idea accordingly though.
I’d like to point out that better health often leads to citizens who are more able to do good things, namely revolt (https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs) and do good (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/users/emmannaemeka).
(The three-hour thing is this: do good by telling important people information or convince them to change their decision-making process.)
I’m pretty sure that, assuming everyone acts perfectly logically, you always end up at a bash equilibrium, right? so you need to influence the nash equilibrium, or make something else become a nash equilibrium, right?
Update: I think I heard from the NYT (a while back) that there’s a 1⁄20 chance something similar happens to what happened in 2023 on any given year, but I haven’t tried to find the link. (this is not new information.)
(joke) “New Top EA Cause: Not doing anything and sitting in front of the TV and complaining.” “Too often, Effective Altruism ignores common practices people do to do good. Donating blood, Calling their mom sometimes, and complaining while simultaneously doing absolutely nothing and hope things work out on their own. Clearly, many see this as a new way of having an impact, and it’s worth further investigation.”
There’s the quick takes section currently, for what that’s worth
Update: (this is on me) I wasted roughly all of this time waiting for something to load, something that would’ve happened regardless. sorry!
Another way is to try to make human error guide someone in a similar direction to logical decisions. For example, there is a major taboo against drug use in many areas, which supposedly decreases drug use when unnecessary.
More generally, a common strategy is to limit how much human error changes someone’s decisions, on average.