All of Aayush Kucheria's Comments + Replies
I'm surprised why this post is being downvoted. It takes a controversial topic but seems to talk reasonably through it?
(For those downvoting, maybe mention your reasons?)
I haven't downvoted or read the post, but one explanation is the title "You're probably a eugenicist" seems clickbaity and aimed at persuasion. It reads as ripe for plucking out of context by our critics. I immediately see it cited in the next major critique published in a major news org: "In upvoted posts on the EA forum, EAs argue they can have 'reasonable' conversations about eugenics."
One idea for dealing with controversial ideas is to A. use a different word and or B. make it more boring. If the title read something like, "Most people favor selecting for valuable hereditary traits." My pulse would quicken less upon reading.
Here's Bostrom's letter about it (along with the email) for context: https://nickbostrom.com/oldemail.pdf
My initial answer was yes. But now that I think about it, all my EA connections have happened off-forum. Mostly on slack, email, and Facebook. Which I feel is kinda weird 🤔
I'm thinking of organizing an unofficial version of this in Finland. So this would be nice for sure :)
Maybe a typo: the second AI (EA) should be AI (Work)?
AI (EA) did not have to care about mundane problems such as “availability of relevant training data” or even “algorithms”: the only limit ever discussed was amount of computation, and that’s why AI (EA) was not there yet, but soon would be, when systems would have enough computational power to simulate human brains.
Btw, really like your writing style! :)
Awesome stuff! Have you increased the maximum limit of participants yet? (Asking before sending this to my community group in case it creates problems)
This looks like an experiment worth trying out on scale. Will sign up for the team when you start the process!
At least in my case, they asked me to reach out directly in the future if I wanted further help. I have the impression that they’re trying to help us in the long-term, and not as a one-off favour.
(Would be curious if anybody else has had a different experience!)
I second this! Initially I was of the opinion that it wouldn’t be helpful to me, but the advisor pointed out a few things I was missing which led me to significantly change my plans :)
Thanks for posting this, was quite interesting!
I have one question if you don't mind. The disadvantages you pose for lithium-ion batteries (capacity) and electrolysis with hydrogen (inefficiency) - are they problems that are inherent to the processes or can they potentially be solved?
It's interesting how listening to the people who are present is the default approach but not the optimal one. So we need to go against the grain to listen to those who are not present as well.
Another counterintuitive concept I came across on this forum. Thanks for writing this post!
Doing something to democratize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) - thereby reducing the risk involved in testing new ideas and interventions.
RCTs are a popular methodology in medicine and the social sciences. They create a safety net for the scientists (and consumers) to test that the drug works as intended and doesn't turn people into mutants.
I think using this methodology in other fields would be a high-leverage intervention. For example startups, policy-making, education, etc. Being able to try out new ideas without facing a huge downside should be a ...
I'm sorry, but I consider myself EA-adjacent-adjacent.
Isn't that a bit self-aggrandising? I prefer "aspiring EA-adjacent"