User Comment Replies

Developing a Psychological Scale to Measure Scout Mindset

Nice post! Can we have the answers for the conditional reasoning test?

Did Bengio and Tegmark lose a debate about AI x-risk against LeCun and Mitchell?

Haven't watched it yet, but perhaps we should be cautious calling some arguments "heuristics", and some "logical arguments". I think the distinction isn't completely clear, and some arguments for AI extinction risk could be considered heuristics.

Karl von Wendt

10mo

I agree that we should always be cautious when dismissing another's arguments. I also agree that some pro-x-risk arguments may be heuristics. But I think the distinction is quite important. A heuristic is a rule of thumb, often based on past experience. If you claim "tomorrow the sun will rise in the east because that's what it has always done", that's a heuristic. If you instead say "Earth is a ball circling the sun while rotating on its axis; reversing this rotation would require enormous forces and is highly unlikely, therefore we can expect that it will look like the sun is rising in the east tomorrow", that's not a heuristic, but a logical argument. Heuristics work well in situations that are more or less stable, but they can be misleading when the situation is unusual or highly volatile. We're living in very uncommon times, therefore heuristics are not good arguments in a discussion about topics like AI safety. The claim "people have always been afraid of technology, and it was always unfounded, so there is no need to be afraid of AI x-risk now" is a typical heuristic, and it is highly misleading (and also wrong IMO - the fear of a nuclear war is certainly not unfounded, for instance, and some of the bad consequences of technology, like climate change and environmental destruciton, are only now becoming apparent). The problem with heuristics is that they are unreliable. They prove nothing. At the same time, they are very easy to understand, and therefore very convincing. They have a high potential of misleading people and clouding their judgements. Therefore, we should avoid and fight them wherever we can, or at least make it transparent that they are just rules of thumb based on past experience, not logical conclusions based on a model of reality. Edit: I'd be interested to hear what the people who disagree with this think. Seriously. This may be an important discussion.

What is a good EA career change for a Physiotherapy student?

Joe9110mo2

I finished my Physiotherapy degree a few months ago, and am currently looking for a physiotherapy job to earn some money and have time to think about my career. I'm still leaning towards bioinformatics, or perhaps something else such as economics, software engineering or data science.

Do you think decreasing the consumption of animals is good/bad? Think again?

Joe9111mo4

I agree that it would be possible for the harms of factory farming to be outweighed by the factors you have mentioned. However, I would be hesitant to strongly believe this without extensive justification. Back of the envelope calculations could be flawed due to bias, incomplete information, setting a bad precedent, flow-on effects, reputational damage, etc.

Another point is that reduced opposition to factory farming could prolong a situation which is both bad for farm animals and probably a suboptimal solution to the problems you have raised (ASRS, wild animal welfare). For example, factory farming might slow the development of more advanced/resilient foods. It could be best to pursue optimal solutions to each problem.

Vasco Grilo

11mo

I agree, reality is hard! On the other hand, I would say such points should push us towards being less certain about what is right/wrong. A hallmark of naive utilitarianism is strongly optimising for a single metric (e.g. number of factory-farmed animals) without adequately accounting for other potential important effects (e.g. on wild animals and longterm future). I think you are alluding to a really important heuristic, which is thinking about what the optimal world would look like, and then figure out what would move us towards it. My ideal world does not include factory-farming (even if factory-farmed animals had positive lives, there likely are more efficient ways of producing wellbeing), which suggests opposition to factory-farming is good. Nonetheless, opposition to factory-farming may also lead to effects which push against arriving to an optimal world. For example, my optimal world does not include lots of wild animal suffering, and abolitionist approaches to farmed animal welfare may decrease the likelihood of humans deciding to improve the lives of wild animals. So I am more sympathetic to welfare reforms than simply decreasing the consumption of animals. In terms of ASRSs, I agree preparedness and response plans as well as R&D of resilient foods is more cost-effective at the margin than increasing the consumption of factory-farmed animals. However, directing edible animal feed to humans is probably one of the best approaches to increase food supply during ASRSs.

Do you think decreasing the consumption of animals is good/bad? Think again?

Answer by Joe91May 27, 202333

I'm probably being overly simplistic here, but I think that opposing excessive coercion and gratuitous suffering (rights violations in other words) is very important from a prudent utilitarian perspective. Some may argue that this approach doesn't apply as much to animals, but perhaps it should as the world becomes less speciesist.

Vasco Grilo

10mo

I'm Not a Speciesist; I'm Just a Utilitarian. Great piece from Brian Tomasik illustrating key differences between animals and humans: In essence, as I commented, humans are not only moral patients, but also moral agents.

Vasco Grilo

11mo

Thanks for commenting, Joe! I think that is definitely an important point, and it makes me believe the conditions of factory-farmed animals should be improved such that their rights are less violated. However, I do not know whether it outweights other factors like the increased human starvation in abrupt sunlight reduction scenarios, and potentially preventing wild animals from having good lives. Copy-pasting from my reply further down:

What vegan food resources have you found useful?

Answer by Joe91May 24, 20235

I think this website is a good source of evidence based vegan diet information, and it has some recipes too: https://www.scepticaldoctor.com/

Veganism, Optimal Health, and Intellectual Honesty

Joe911y2

If you're still interested in this, I found another extensive article about vegan protein: https://mynutritionscience.com/plantbasedprotein/

Veganism, Optimal Health, and Intellectual Honesty

Joe911y10

I think it's probably best to avoid listening to "celebrity doctors" and documentaries. This blog provides some good evidence based advice for vegan nutrition IMO:

https://www.scepticaldoctor.com/

Good article about protein here: https://www.scepticaldoctor.com/articles/protein-above-rda

Michael_2358

Thank you! This exactly what I was looking for.

What is a good EA career change for a Physiotherapy student?

Joe912y2

I think you're right that consultancy for EAs could be a good idea. However I'm not particularly enthusiastic about ergonomics and posture, because I've yet to see strong evidence they prevent pain. Other lines of evidence also suggest that traditional physiotherapy beliefs about back pain and other pain may be misguided.

I think cardiovascular risk factor reduction (obesity, low physical activity) and proven injury prevention programs such as the FIFA11+ for soccer would be more effective, but less relevant to EAs.

The Medical Mysteries Investigator sounds interesting, and I will keep an eye out for similar jobs.

Thanks very much for your advice!

What is a good EA career change for a Physiotherapy student?

Joe912y2

That's a good idea. I think I would have a low chance of getting the coaching since I don't really have any typical high impact skills, but I think it would be worth a shot.

Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

All of Joe91's Comments + Replies