268Joined Oct 2014


[epistemic status: idle uninformed speculation]

I basically agree with this comment, which makes me like the idea of an open EAG. Closed EAG is theoretically good for shaping culture by selecting good participants, but CEA faces a knowledge problem for which people are "good culture fits", and it moves towards promoting some weird homogenization thing. I have some inchoate instinct that a more decentralized network of smaller walled gardens can preserve and signal good parts of culture, while avoiding frustrating "CEA as kingmaker" dynamics, and allowing an open EAG to introduce novelty into the system.

Note that premise 2 strongly depends on the probability of crazy AI being developed in the relevant time period.

One perhaps opposite concern I have about this: having lots of money dispersed by grantmakers means you're less like a market economy, and more like a communist economy (except rich, and the central planners are just giving you cash). But this is bad, because it's better to live in a market economy - you have a healthier relationship to your money because you earned it (as opposed to "well I guess I just asked for this money and now I have it so I hope I'm not squandering it in someone else's eyes"), and the constraints you feel in seem more real rather than "why aren't the money fairies giving me stuff".

Re: 1, my impression is that Russia and NATO have been in a few proxy conflicts, and so have presumably worked out this deal.

Re: 2, that seems basically right.

Re: 3, I'd weight this relatively low, since it's the kind of 'soft' reporting I'd strongly expect to be less reliable in the current media environment where Putin is considered a villain.

Note that at most this will get you an order of magnitude above the base rate.

Not to toot my own horn too much, but I think that my post gives a decent explanation for why you shouldn't update too much on recent events - I'm still higher than the consensus, but I expected to be much higher.

So, that's one way to do things, but there's another perspective that looks more like the multiplier approach:

Suppose that in order for B to happen, A needs to happen first. Furthermore, suppose that you've never observed A or B. Then, instead of using Laplace to forecast B, you should probably use it to forecast A, and then multiply by p(B|A). I think this isn't such an uncommon scenario, and a US-Russia nuclear exchange probably fits (altho I wouldn't have my probability factor be as low as 0.5).

For those like me who don't know what a quango is, here's a Wikipedia link:

The term quango or QUANGO (less often QuANGO or QANGO) is a description of an organisation to which a government has devolved power, but which is still partly controlled and/or financed by government bodies.

I haven't heard much in the way of specific proposals for how the existing "system" could be fundamentally reformed, other than explicitly socialist and Marxist proposals such as the abolition of private property, which I don't support.

More right-wing flavoured versions that you could run into include flavours of anarcho-capitalism (see e.g. The Machinery of Freedom and The Problem of Political Authority) and Hansonian proposals such as futarchy and private criminal law enforcement.

Perhaps the idea is that it should be a symbolic reminder that trusted community members could do bad things, rather than evidence for that proposition?

But if you actually should press the button, and do so because you correctly understand why you should, then people shouldn't learn the lesson "people will do wild crazy stuff out of misunderstandings or malice", because that won't be what happened.

Load More