Hide table of contents

This is a famous Turkish poem by Nazım Hikmet. I just noticed its interesting overlap with some of the EA themes . Some here might find it motivating to read it. Translation by Randy Blasing and Mutlu Konuk:

On Living

                I 
Living is no laughing matter:

         you must live with great seriousness

               like a squirrel, for example-

       I mean without looking for something beyond and above living,

               I mean living must be your whole occupation.

Living is no laughing matter:

       you must take it seriously,

       so much so and to such a degree

     that, for example, your hands tied behind your back,

                               your back to the wall,

       or else in a laboratory

               in your white coat and safety glasses,

               you can die for people-

            even for people whose faces you've never seen,

            even though nobody forced you to do so,

            even though you know living

               is the most real, the most beautiful thing.

       I mean, you must take living so seriously

            that even at seventy, for example, you'll plant olive trees-

            and not for your children, either,

            but because although you fear death you don't believe it,

            because living, I mean, weighs heavier.

                           II 

Let's say we're seriously ill, need surgery - 

which is to say we might not get up

                   from the white table.

Even though it's impossible not to feel sad

                   about going a little too soon,

we'll still laugh at the jokes being told,

we'll look out the window to see if it's raining,

or still wait anxiously

                   for the latest newscast ...

Let's say we're at the front-

         for something worth fighting for, say.

There, in the first offensive, on that very day,

         we might fall on our face, dead.

We'll know this with a curious anger,

   but we'll still worry ourselves to death

   about the outcome of the war, which could last years.
 

Let's say we're in prison 

and close to fifty,

and we have eighteen more years, say,

                  before the iron doors will open.

We'll still live with the outside,

with its people and animals, struggle and wind-

                     I mean with the outside beyond the walls.

I mean, however and wherever we are,

   we must live as if we will never die.

                  III 

This earth will grow cold, 

a star among stars

        and one of the smallest, 

a gilded mote on blue velvet-

        I mean this, our great earth.

This earth will grow cold one day,

not like a block of ice 

or a dead cloud even

but like an empty walnut it will roll along

        in pitch-black space ...

You must grieve for this right now

-you have to feel this sorrow now-

for the world must be loved this much

                   if you're going to say ``I lived'' ... 
 

39

0
0
8

Reactions

0
0
8
Comments4


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I find most poetry on these themes to be hard to engage with sincerely. This one felt, somehow, better and more appropriate than other similar poems, and I really enjoyed reading it. Thanks for sharing!

Here's a human translation, although ChatGPT's is suspiciously similar.

ChatGPT seems to have taken it from the training data, without much change. I will replace the translation with this one.

That was refreshing change of pace :) Thanks for posting.

Curated and popular this week
trammell
 ·  · 25m read
 · 
Introduction When a system is made safer, its users may be willing to offset at least some of the safety improvement by using it more dangerously. A seminal example is that, according to Peltzman (1975), drivers largely compensated for improvements in car safety at the time by driving more dangerously. The phenomenon in general is therefore sometimes known as the “Peltzman Effect”, though it is more often known as “risk compensation”.[1] One domain in which risk compensation has been studied relatively carefully is NASCAR (Sobel and Nesbit, 2007; Pope and Tollison, 2010), where, apparently, the evidence for a large compensation effect is especially strong.[2] In principle, more dangerous usage can partially, fully, or more than fully offset the extent to which the system has been made safer holding usage fixed. Making a system safer thus has an ambiguous effect on the probability of an accident, after its users change their behavior. There’s no reason why risk compensation shouldn’t apply in the existential risk domain, and we arguably have examples in which it has. For example, reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) makes AI more reliable, all else equal; so it may be making some AI labs comfortable releasing more capable, and so maybe more dangerous, models than they would release otherwise.[3] Yet risk compensation per se appears to have gotten relatively little formal, public attention in the existential risk community so far. There has been informal discussion of the issue: e.g. risk compensation in the AI risk domain is discussed by Guest et al. (2023), who call it “the dangerous valley problem”. There is also a cluster of papers and works in progress by Robert Trager, Allan Dafoe, Nick Emery-Xu, Mckay Jensen, and others, including these two and some not yet public but largely summarized here, exploring the issue formally in models with multiple competing firms. In a sense what they do goes well beyond this post, but as far as I’m aware none of t
LewisBollard
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
> Despite the setbacks, I'm hopeful about the technology's future ---------------------------------------- It wasn’t meant to go like this. Alternative protein startups that were once soaring are now struggling. Impact investors who were once everywhere are now absent. Banks that confidently predicted 31% annual growth (UBS) and a 2030 global market worth $88-263B (Credit Suisse) have quietly taken down their predictions. This sucks. For many founders and staff this wasn’t just a job, but a calling — an opportunity to work toward a world free of factory farming. For many investors, it wasn’t just an investment, but a bet on a better future. It’s easy to feel frustrated, disillusioned, and even hopeless. It’s also wrong. There’s still plenty of hope for alternative proteins — just on a longer timeline than the unrealistic ones that were once touted. Here are three trends I’m particularly excited about. Better products People are eating less plant-based meat for many reasons, but the simplest one may just be that they don’t like how they taste. “Taste/texture” was the top reason chosen by Brits for reducing their plant-based meat consumption in a recent survey by Bryant Research. US consumers most disliked the “consistency and texture” of plant-based foods in a survey of shoppers at retailer Kroger.  They’ve got a point. In 2018-21, every food giant, meat company, and two-person startup rushed new products to market with minimal product testing. Indeed, the meat companies’ plant-based offerings were bad enough to inspire conspiracy theories that this was a case of the car companies buying up the streetcars.  Consumers noticed. The Bryant Research survey found that two thirds of Brits agreed with the statement “some plant based meat products or brands taste much worse than others.” In a 2021 taste test, 100 consumers rated all five brands of plant-based nuggets as much worse than chicken-based nuggets on taste, texture, and “overall liking.” One silver lining
 ·  · 1m read
 ·