All of AronM's Comments + Replies

Okay got 2 for you :)

(I am out of tickets. Now you need to book yourself.)

We can now book the tickets for 7pm (originial version) screening!

Here: https://buchung.cineplex.de/checkout/363b3ca7-82de-4591-8900-adb9a34dccd4/init

So far we have booked row C :-)

We will update the timings for the talk+snacks+Q&A before the end of the day. Looking forward to seeing you all and experiencing this evening!

2
Jack Lewars
9mo
Can I reserve two of these for me and my wife (not on the forum and so not under 'Going' above)? If not, I can book my own

Thanks for creating this! Interesting to see the overview. Also interesting to see the challenges of having to categorize all these different efforts.

I would like to suggest that ALLFED be placed differently. At ALLFED we are looking at a wide range of risks that could disrupt / threaten our global food system. Some of which are fairly certain to occur this century (such as Coinciding Extreme Weather Events leading to Multiple Breadbasket Failure). 

I feel like a category of "Global Catastrophic Risks (GCRs)" right next to x-risks might be the most fitting for ALLFED.

3
mariekedev
10mo
Thanks, that makes much more sense! Changed it.  Feel free to add other improvements in the mindmap self with comments. 

Thank you for this work. I appreciate the high-level transparency throughout (e.g what is an opinion, how many sources have been read/incorporated, reasons for assumptions etc.)!

I have few key (dis)agreements and considerations. Disclaimer: I work for ALLFED (Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters) where we look at preparedness and response to nuclear winter among other things.

1) Opportunity Costs

I think it is not necessary for work on either preventing the worst nuclear conflicts or work on preparedness/response to be mutually exclusive with preventing n... (read more)

2
Vasco Grilo
22d
Thanks for the detailed comment, Aron! I think nuclear tail risk may be fairly neglected because their higher severity may be more than outweighted by their lower likelihood. To illustrate, in the context of conventional wars: * Deaths follow a power law whose tail index is “1.35 to 1.74, with a mean of 1.60”. So the probability density function (PDF) of the deaths is proportional to “deaths”^-2.6 (= “deaths”^-(“tail index” + 1)), which means a conventional war exactly 10 times as deadly is 0.251 % (= 10^-2.6) as likely[1]. * As a result, the expected value density of the deaths ("PDF of the deaths"*"deaths") is proportional to “deaths”^-1.6 (= “deaths”^-2.6*“deaths”). * I think spending by war severity should a priori be proportional to expected deaths, i.e. to “deaths”^-1.6. If so, spending to save lives in wars exactly 1 k times as deadly should be 0.00158 % (= (10^3)^(-1.6)) as high. Nuclear wars arguably scale much faster than conventional ones (i.e. have a lower tail index), so I guess spending on nuclear wars involving 1 k nuclear detonations should be higher than 0.00158 % of the spending on ones involving a single detonation. However, it is not obvious to me whether it should be higher than e.g. 1 % (respecting the multiplier you mentioned of 100). I estimated the expected value density of the 90th, 99th and 99.9th percentile famine deaths due to the climatic effects of a large nuclear war are 17.0 %, 2.19 %, and 0.309 % that of the median deaths, which suggests spending on the 90th, 99th and 99.9th percentile large nuclear war should be 17.0 %, 2.19 %, and 0.309 % that on the median large nuclear war. 1. ^ Note the tail distribution is proportional to "deaths"^-1.6 (= "deaths"^-"tail index"), so a conventional war at least 10 times as deadly is 2.51 % (= 10^-1.6) as likely.

Thanks for taking the time to read through the whole thing and leaving this well-considered comment! :)

In response to your points:

1) Opportunity costs

  • “I do not know how a specialization would look like that is only relevant at the 100 to 1000 nukes step. I know me not being able to imagine such a specialization is only a weak argument but I am also not aware of anyone only looking at such a niche problem.” - If this is true and if people who express concern mainly/only for the worst kinds of nuclear war are actually keen on interventions that are equally r
... (read more)

Thanks for writing this up and sharing your experiences and thoughts. It is clear (to me) that you went into this very observant and that you engaged with the ideas.

Brief disclaimer: While reading your post I had a few ideas. Below is written more loosely in a conversational style as I am afraid if I don't comment something of lower quality now while in the flow I will not comment at all.

  • I understand you suggest that JSW need to be included. That you value grassroot movements, correct? That this would increase the diversity of thoughts within the community
... (read more)

Related to fire raves:
Would you join community organized (fire) raves, say after-parties from EAG/EAGx or burner-style events? (Winking at the amazing EA Berlin community ;) )

(Or do you see a potential PR risk? Or would you not enjoy it as much with the attention you are getting? Would you join a masked (fire) rave?)

I appreciate the kind words. I am glad the analogy works for you!

Overall I would guess this took 12 hours of active work and probably some thinking sprinkled over 2-3 weeks. This is how it went down:
I woke up after 1.5 hours of sleep with clarity about this 'obligation' part above. Eg. why do I feel pressure to improve. Quickly grab my laptop to take some notes with the plan to go to bed again. Start writing.  Feel more clarity than ever before - I can put my thoughts into words. Get into flow state. 80%-90% of the post above were done after 3.5 hours... (read more)

1
Edward Tranter
2y
Awesome! Thanks for the comprehensive reply. I'm in the midst of writing of first Forum post right now, and this is super helpful.

Yes, ALLFED does since this year (see our annual report or webpage: https://allfed.info/donate )

Thank you very much for this offer. Would this also apply for people who will be accepted. Are travelling in January. And after living for one week do the calculations and see that the expense for ~6 month would be too much?

I am personally surprised by the debate around cost of living but I am also aware that I come from a naive perspective because I can live/survive of less than 1,000 $ per month (including rent and food) in Berlin, Germany.

Disclosure: I applied. 

4
Linch
2y
Sure!
Answer by AronMMar 03, 20218
0
0

I would like to hear your thoughts on Generalist vs Specialist debate.

    • Advice for someone early as a generalist?
    • Did you stumble upon these different fields of interest by your own or did you surround yourself with smart people to get good understandings of various fields?
    • Thoughts on impact comparissons? (Eg can a generalist maybe bring knowledge/wisdom from intuitively non-adjacent disciplines into a project and help advance it?)
    • What skills are you lacking \ or which ones would you like to aquire to become a "Jack of all trades"?
    • Are you even aiming to become even more of a generalist? Yes or no - please elaborate.

Hmm this doesn't answer any of your questions directly, but might be helpful context to set: My impression is that relatively few people actually set out to become generalists! I think it's more accurate of an explanation to think of some people being willing to do what needs to get done (or doing things they find interesting, or has high exploration value, or a myriad of other reasons). And if those things keep seeming like highly impactful things to do (or continues to be interesting, has high learning/exploration value, etc), they keep doing t... (read more)

Yes, we are looking into cellular agriculture. Right now we have 2 papers in peer-review, which are covering single cell protein from bacteria that either feed on hydrogen or methane. One of these projects was announced in the report above:

The project will investigate using hydrogen-eating single-cell protein as a food source in catastrophes. The hydrogen would be obtained by electricity splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen, or by gasifying (heating without oxygen) solid fuels such as wood, coal, or peat.

And yes we are in contact both with Solar F... (read more)

Just leaving a quick comment to clarify that I did not downvote your comment.

Another crucial consideration may be the timeline of intelligent life re-evolving. In scenario B), intelligent life may re-evolve but it may take 100 million years, as opposed to 1 million years in scenario

This is the biggest argument for me against the consideration. I can easily think that it would take way longer than that for intelligent life to reemerge. It took something like 4.6 billion years for us to evolve and in roughly 0.5 billion years the sun will make life on earth uninhabitable. I guess if other primates survive that is a "good" starting point for evolution but intelligent life doesn't seem to be a necessary step for me for survival.

2
RobertHarling
4y
Considering evolutionary timelines is definitely very hard because it's such a chaotic process. I don't have too much knowledge about evolutionary history and am hoping to research this more. I think after most human existential events, the complexity of the life that remains would be much greater than that for most of the history of the Earth. So although it took humans 4.6 billion years to evolve "from scratch", it could take significantly less time for intelligent life to re-evolve after an existential event as a lot of the hard evolutionary work has already been done. I could definitely believe it could take longer than 0.5 billion years for intelligent life to re-evolve, but I'd be very uncertain on that and give some credence that it could take significantly less time. For example, humanity evolved "only" 65 million years after the asteroid that caused the dinosaur extinction. The consideration of how "inevitable" intelligence is in evolution is very interesting. One argument that high intelligence would be likely to re-emerge could be that humanity has shown it to be a very successful strategy. So it would just take one species to evolve high levels of intelligence for there to then become a large number of intelligent beings on Earth again. (Apologies for my slow reply to your comment!)

Thank you very much for that GJOpen link. On March 30 you estimated a 66% of famine in those regions to be a slight overestimate. Would you mind sharing why you thought this way back then and if you updated in the mean time (and if yes, why)?

Currently the forecast average is at 70%. I put in a 65%.

Reasons for a lower chance:

  • The amount of global kcal locked up due to trade restrictions has gone done in the last week from 4.3 to 2.5% AND the USA joined the pledge to keep food supply chains running (after some hestiation apprently since they weren't ment
... (read more)
4
NunoSempere
4y
Because the question asks about a very specifical technical definition of famine, and I think that the crowd forecasters were anchoring on "things will get bad", rather than on "this specific technical definition will be met". I'd appreciate it having more bins. I also looked into the FEWS reports, and none of them forecasted the highest level. Looking into the Our World in Data page on famines, the base rate isn't high.

It seems like RP's team is working remotely. If not please ignore my questions.

How do you deal with the challenges of researchers working remotely? How do you make sure you are having frequent exchanges and smooth communication?

In case you have some people working at one place (eg office) and some people working remotely:

How do you maintain a coherent team feeling? Do you think one requires such a feeling?


Hi,

You're correct that we have a remote team located in many countries.

1)Challenges

Time zone challenges are definitely present with such a global team, especially for scheduling. There is also a barrier to having natural interactions in the way that would randomly happen in an office.

2)Frequent & Smooth communication

Slack is immensely useful for quick and easy communication. We have daily check-ins on Slack to let each other know what we are working on. We share what we are working on in Google Docs for others to comment and collaborate on. Some team m

... (read more)

We can't give a public statement yet. We are expecting one on December 13. The intention of the institute is to cover GCR, x-risks and futurology/foresight.

As soon as we have something to publish I will update this comment and then report accordingly.

2 key information helped me to have impact (after I read about EA, the core ideas and values).

Short version:

1. Not only AI-researchers can do impactful work. Also engineers and other fields. See: http://effectivethesis.com/

2. Most of EAs focus is on preventing x-risks/GCR which is correct because we can't afford to have them occur even once. Work on surviving and lessen the far future impact of x-risks is neglected. ALLFED (Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters) is working on feeding everyone in a catastrophe and has alot of low hanging fruits to wo... (read more)