On the most crucial topics, and in capturing the nuance and complexity of the real world, this piece fails again and again: epistemic overconfidence plus uncharitable disdain for the work of others, spread thinly over as many topics as possible.
Interestingly, this reminds me of Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
Another thing for people to keep in mind:
Apparently, if you want loan forgiveness, you can only spend 8 weeks worth of the money on payroll.
If you’re a sole proprietor, you can have eight weeks of the loan forgiven as a replacement for lost profit. But you’ll need to provide documentation for the remaining two weeks worth of cash flow, proving you spent it on mortgage interest, rent, lease, and utility payments.
So if at some point you need to check boxes saying what you're applying for this loan for, and you can check more than one box, you should check all of them, or at least payroll + something else. If you can only check one box, I guess check payroll.
I doubt that that box checking actually matters, but it seems prudent to do this, just in case it does.
I recommend that everyone who is eligible apply through US Bank ASAP.
Other lenders might still work, but US Bank was by far the fastest. A person that I was coaching through this process and I both received our loans within 4 days of initially filling out their application (I say "initially" because there were several steps where they needed additional info).
Also, we now know that the correct answer to how many employees you have is "0 employees, it's just me", not "1 employee, because I employ myself."
An email I received from Bench reads: "If your bank isn’t participating, your next best option is to apply through Fundera—they will match you with the best lender."
However, when I tried to fill out their application, they asked me to upload...
...of which I have only one out of three.
I think a lot of this is right and important, but I especially love:
Don't let the fact that Bill Gates saved a million lives keep you from saving one.
We're all doing the best we can with the privileges we were blessed with.
I like the breakdown of those two bullet points, a lot, and I want to think more about them.
Both of these I think are fairly easily measurable from looking at someone's past work and talking to them, though.
I bet that you could do that, yes. But that seems like a different question than making a scalable system that can do it.
In any case, Ben articulates the view that generated the comment above, above.
What about Paul's Integrity for Consequentialists?
[Edit: it'd be very strange if we end up preferring candidates who hadn't thought about AI at all to candidates who had thought some about AI but don't have specific plans for it.]
That doesn't seem that strange to me. It seems to mostly be a matter of timing.
Yes, eventually we'll be in an endgame where the great powers are making substantial choices about how powerful AI systems will be deployed. And at that point I want the relevant decision makers to have sophisticated views about AI risk and astronomical stakes.
But in the the decades before that final period, I probably prefer that governmental actors not really think about powerful AI at all because...
1. There's not much that those governmental actors can usefully do at this time.
2. The more discussion of powerful AI there is in the halls of government, the more likely someone is to take action.
Given that there's not much that can be usefully done, it's almost a tautology that any action taken is likely to be net-negative.
Additionally, there are specific reasons to to think that governmental action is likely to be more bad than good.
My overall crux here is point #1, above. If I thought that there were concrete helpful things that governments could do today, I might very well think that the benefits outweighed the risks that I outline above.
This is a quote from somewhere? From where?