Hide table of contents

Edit (April 6, 2023): Submissions are currently paused due to the unexpectedly high amount of submissions already received.

TLDR; This post announces the trial period of Rhyme, a history consultancy for longtermists. It seems like longtermists can profit from historical insights and the distillation of the current state of historical literature on a particular question, both because of its use as an intuition pump and for information about the historical context of their work. So, if you work on an AI Governance project (research or policy) and are interested in augmenting it with a historical perspective, consider registering your interest and the cruxes of your research here.  During this trial period of three to six months, the service is free. 

"History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes." - Mark Twain

What Problem is Rhyme trying to solve? 

When we try to answer a complicated question like “how would a Chinese regime change influence the international AI Landscape”, it can be hard to know where to start. We need to come up with a hypothesis, a scenario. But what should we base this hypothesis, this scenario on? How would we know which hypotheses are most plausible? Game theoretical analysis provides one possible inspiration. But we don't just need to know what a rational actor would do, given particular incentives. We also need intuitions for how actors would act irrationally, given specific circumstances.

  • Would we have thought of considering the influence of close familial ties between European leaders when trying to predict the beginning of the first world war? (Clark, 2014)
  • Would we have considered Lyndon B. Johnson's training as a tutor for disadvantaged children as a student when trying to predict his success in convincing congresspeople effectively? (Caro, 1982)
  • Would we have considered the Merino-Wool-Business of a certain diplomat from Geneva when trying to predict whether Switzerland would be annexed by its neighbouring empires in 1815? (E. Pictet, 1892).

In summary: A lot of pivotal actions and developments depend on circumstances we wouldn’t expect them to. Not because we’d think them to be implausible, but because we wouldn’t think of considering them. We need inspiration and orientation in this huge space of possible hypotheses to avoid missing out on the ones which are actually true.

In an ideal world, AI governance researchers would know about a vast amount of historical literature that is written with enough detail to analyse important decisions, as well as multiple biographies of the same people, so they see where scholars currently disagree. This strategy has two main problems: Firstly, the counterfactual impact these people could have with their time is potentially very big. Secondly, detailed historical literature (which is, often, biographies or primary sources) tends to be written for entertainment, among other things. Biographers have an interest in highlighting maybe irrelevant, but spicy details about romantic relationships, quirky fun jokes told by the person or the etymological origins of the name of a friend. This makes biographies longer than they’d need to be for the goal of analysing the relevant factors in pivotal decisions of a particular person. It takes training to filter through this information to find the actually important stuff. Skills that require training are more efficiently done when a part of an ecosystem specializes in them. Rhyme is an attempt at this specialization.
 

Who could actually use this? 

The following examples should illustrate who could use this service: 

  • Alice is writing a report on the possibilities for the state of California to regulate possible AI uses. They wonder how big the influence of the Governor's advisors was in past regulation attempts of other technologies.
  • Bob wants a brief history of the EU’s regulation of general-purpose technologies to have more context on the norms to follow. 
  • Connor is trying to forecast how the American public might react to a weaponized AI used in combat against civilians. 
  • Dora is trying to convince an Austrian and a German diplomat to cooperate on a specific piece of legislation and look at past successful strategies. 
  • Edith is trying to forecast how the Chinese government might try to import talent to make faster progress on building better chip factories. They are looking for past cases where the Chinese government looked for talent and tacit knowledge in other countries in the past. 
     

Where is this going? 

Depends on the feedback! I’d first like to test this in the field of AI Governance because of my own familiarity and the urgency of the problem. If there turns out to be enough of a demand for the service this project provides, I stay passionate about doing it and there is no fundamental flaw in the concept, I’d be happy to continue this service or scale it to other areas of the longtermist landscape. (E.g. Biosecurity, nuclear security community building, cause-specific outreach). 
 

About me: 

I am a recent graduate in history and philosophy, having done several independent research projects in history over the last 7 years (Some of them academic papers, most of them side projects). I mostly focused on the history of technology after 1800, but also trained in medieval and renaissance political history and its methodology. I care about preventing anthropogenic existential risks and improving democratic decisions. This is my website if you would like to know more about me personally.

Questions? Contact me here: thurnherr.lara@gmail.com or comment on this post. 

Sources

​​Caro, Robert A.: The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Path to Power, New York 1982. P. 315.

Clark, Christopher: The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914, 2014. Pp. 50.

Pictet, E.: Biographie, travaux et correspondance diplomatique de Charles Pictet de Rochemont , 1892. P.345. 

 

Thanks to Violet Buxton-Walsh, Elia Heer, Michel Justen and Hannes Thurnherr for feedback and support. 
 

147

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments6


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Interesting initiative!

Some scattered thoughts:

  • You might like Anton Howes' blog, where he discusses invention and progress ~1500-1800. There could be some interesting lessons as people are considering ways of incentivising progress like prizes and impact certificates
  • I often think about why electricity didn't immediately revolutionise manufacturing (spoiler: people had to shift their mindset away from thinking of one giant steam engine powering every machine, to having small electric motors at each machine that could be controlled individually)
  • There are some interesting calls for historical research here. Specifically:
    • a history of philanthropy
    • social movements which achieved an outsized impact. For example, the group of early neoliberals clustered around Chicago achieved a wild amount amount of influence, partly through the so-called 'Chicago boys'.
  • I'd love to understand more about discontinuous progress in history
  • There's a piece here with other history research ideas (and interesting stuff in the comments too)

P.S. Congrats on finishing the Caro book :)

Sounds like a cool project, thanks for trying this out!

This is a great initiative and new angle. I hope orgs see the value in your work and you get the ball rolling. I would recommend teaching out to sarah Pomeranz and the EA consulting group

Great idea! Would love to help you with this - I'm both an entrepreneur, a history nerd (1,000+ books) and am very interested in AI governance. 

Let me know: emersonspartz@nonlinear.org or Twitter DM @EmersonSpartz

This looks so cool! Good luck! 

This looks very interesting! I would love to participate and see where it goes. 

Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by