All of dspeyer's Comments + Replies

We should be reluctant to make statements which could be taken as "scientific" justification for ignoring either of the previous bullet points

 

Thank you for stating plainly what I suspect the original doc was trying to hint at.

That said, now that it's plainly stated, I disagree with it.  The world is too connected  for that.

Taken literally, "could be taken" is a ridiculously  broad standard.  I'm sure a sufficiently motivated reasoner could  take "2+2=4" as justification for racism.  This is not as silly a concern as it s... (read more)

4
Aptdell
1y
I think you make good points -- these are good cases to discuss. I also think that motivated reasoners are not the main concern. My last bullet point was meant as a nudge towards consequentialist communication. I don't think consequentialism should be the last word in communication (e.g. lying to people because you think it will lead to good consequences is not great). But consequences are an important factor, and I think there's a decent case to be made that e.g. Bostrom neglected consequences in his apology letter. (Essentially making statements which violated important and valuable taboos, without any benefit. See my previous comment on this.) For something like COVID, it seems bad to downplay it, but it also seems bad to continually emphasize its location of origin in contexts where that information isn't relevant or important. "We should be reluctant" represents a consideration against doing something, not a complete ban.

Another class of pressures require me to recapitulate the great covid lesson of social reality vs. physical reality (I forget which rationalist citation goes here, I'm building off of a discussion at NYC Solstice):

The citation you're looking for is https://putanumonit.com/2021/04/03/monastery-and-throne/ particularly the section titled "Coordinating Social Reality"

1
quinn
2y
thanks! 
Answer by dspeyerNov 08, 20211
0
0

One challenge will be the uncertainty in models.  It's (comparatively) easy to say "this will reshuffle climate so that our system which assumes current climate zones will be in trouble" and much harder to say which areas will flood and which will burn.

There may be work with doing refining those models.

There may also be things we can do to increase flexibility and resiliency without knowing exactly what's coming.

But it'll be tricky.

How did you get your employer to approve "half time for half pay"?

1
Aryeh Englander
3y
Part-time work is an option at my workplace. Less than half-time loses benefits though, which is why I didn't want to drop down to lower than 50%.

I remember a program specifically for young women (possibly in Bangladesh, possibly linked from slatestarcodex) that specifically listed "ambition" as one of the things it wanted to foster.  But participants went in wanting to be doctors and left wanting to be administrative assistants.  They did not show improvement on any measured axis.  Can't seem to find the link

Answer by dspeyerMay 29, 20212
0
0

DARE belongs in the same paragraph as Scared Straight, FWIW

[Repost from my FB]

I'd like to introduce a setup that's a little different from these arbitrary axes and feels truer to life...

To avoid object-level politics, I'll use Scott's (or was it Nick's?) example:
* Party A wants to increase taxes and social services 5%, and to require everyone to electrocute themselves 8 hours a day.
* Party B wants to decrease taxes and social services 5%, and to require everyone to electrocute themselves 8 hours a day.
* Party C wants to leave taxes and social services as they are, and stop the electrocutions.


"Everyone" knows that ... (read more)

This misses senses in which resources can run out.

Simplestly, there's locked-in-use.  Consider Rhenium.  It's about 1ppb in Earth's crust and about 1000 tonnes of it have been refined in all of history.   How much can be produced without implausibly destructive mining techniques is hard to estimate.   It's essentially indestructable and uncreateable.  It's used in jet engines and other high-temperature high-pressure applications.  The number of jet engines in service at any time is bounded by available Rhenium.  After tha... (read more)

2
EdoArad
3y
That's great, thank you!  I've found this review (2015) of "critical metals" - roughly, those metals that are most needed and we'd likely to see a short in supply. And this recent review (2020) of studies on likely future (2050) demand for these metals. I'm not that sure whether these would be crucial in their impact on economic growth, even if they'd have limited supply; What would be the problem of having fewer jet engines?  Regarding solar energy, I haven't checked the calculations or extrapolated to the future, but taking a look at this I feel optimistic. They say that the Sahara dessert, for example, would be enough space to supply energy to the whole world 20 times over (although they didn't take into account loss of energy in transition and naturally it's not that practical).  I'd love it if someone would take a deeper dive into this topic. Toby Ord talks a bit about related issues of resource scarcity in The Precipice (Chapter 4, "Anthropogenic Risks", Section "Environmental Damage") and also thinks further research is needed (from an x-risk point of view, though).
Answer by dspeyerNov 25, 20201
0
0

For the PPE, check out https://www.facebook.com/groups/opensourcecovid19medicalsupplies

The gender distribution is 71% male, 27% female and 2% other, according to the most recent EA survey.

Answer by dspeyerMay 28, 20201
0
0

I feel obligated to drop this link: https://secularsolstice.github.io/lists/gen/All_Speeches.html

Some of which could probably be adapted for non-Solstice purposes.

As I understand it, the Moderna human trial should have safety data good enough for real-world purposes in about two months. It's a test of 45 people, so if 7% of the population is infected by that time (as seems likely) and none of the vaccinated people are, that's p<0.05 that it's effective, even though they weren't deliberately testing that.

Granted, the vaccine might *not* work, in which case we need a different angle.

But if it does, the FDA will then delay it another year or two. Does anyone know of any leverage at all that could be exerted over the FDA?

1
avturchin
4y
There is a new animal in the room: private pay-to-play clinical trials in third countries. In one case, people have to pay 1 million USD to enrol into an anti-aging clinical trial. Some of them could be scams. But it an option to take the risk and get the vaccine earlier for customers, and to get volunteers for the company. EDITED: Andre Watson will be now live about private vaccine creation: https://www.facebook.com/events/516073069307382/
From the NCMEC report:
A major contributor to the observed exponential growth is the rise of proactive, automated detection efforts by ESPs [electronic service providers], as shown in Figure 3 . Since then, reporting by ESPs increased an average of 101% year-over-year, likely due to increasing user bases and an influx of user-generated content. While automated detection solutions help ESPs scale their protections, law enforcement and NCMEC analysts currently contend with the deluge of reports in a non-automated fashion as they are required to manually reviews the reports

I doubt porn-related child abuse is growing.

NCMEC says that reports of child porn are growing, but that could easily be reports per posting, postings per image, or images per activity. NCMEC just *counts* reports, which are either a member of the public clicking a "report" button or an algorithm finding suspicious content. They acknowledge that a significant part of the rise in from broader deployment of such algorithms.

Similarly, the fraction of porn-producing activities which involve traumatic abuse is unclear. And is likely declining, judg... (read more)

2
Milan_Griffes
5y
Good point. I wonder: * Did algorithm deployment expand a lot from 2014 to 2018? (I'm particularly boggled by the 18x increase in reports between 2014 and 2018) * What amount of the increase seems reasonable to explain away by changes in reporting methods? * About half? (i.e. remaining 2014-to-2018 increase to be explained is 9x?) * 75%? (i.e. remaining 2014-to-2018 increase to be explained is 4x?)