This question (Jan 29), your comment (Feb 4)... I think many things changed now (Sep 16)

I think there is much more written material and much more understanding about the metacrisis.

It is clear to me that it exists.

I think that your approach of enumerating the factors "underlying drivers of the multiple anthropogenic existential threats" does not give the justive. The whole concept of metacrisis is that they are interconnected and need to be adressed as whole.

I do not see metacrisis as pessimistic.

I see metacrisis as accurately describing the state of the current affairs.

There are so many recent events that gave me hope:

• Extinction Rebellion, global decentralized movement
• COVID, radical change is possible
• Elon Musk buying Twitter, freedom of speech, global town hall
• Perennial rice
• Nuclear fusion
• Patent US4394230A for splitting water molecules into hydrogen (it's about changing the structure of water, 1 unit of energy in, more than 1 units of energy out)
• LK99 superconductor (debunked but surely it will inspire next wav

EDIT: I'm replying to this comment many months later. Metacrisis is relatively new, back in January there were not that much written resources. The concept is / was relatively new.

•••••

(from the perspective of time) there is enough material about metacrisis / polycrisis / everything crisis, there is no need for yet another sythesis.

The diagram below comes from World Economic Forum The Global Risks Report 2023

Direct link: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_Report_2023.pdf

Worth noting that "metacrisis" and "polycrisis" are pretty much the same te... (read more)

I came to this post by searching for "Metacrisis".

I genuinely believe that Metacrisis is the underlying mechanism / generator function / incentive (or pervert incentive) affecting loads of existential / catasthropic risks.

A new video just dropped: 

The talk literally has "global catastrophic risks" on the title slide.

I think that EA (Give Well, Open Philanthropy) focus too much on one metric such as DALY, without appreciating the interconnectedness and the fact that many things are difficult to measure using a single metric.

Previously I was chatting with GPT4.

To have more diverse opinions, this time I was chatting with Bard.

I would genuinely appreciate more human eyeballs and brains finding holes in what I've created, handy link to the blog: https://mirror.xyz/0x315f80C7cAaCBE7Fb1c14E65A634db89A33A9637/ETK6RXnmgeNcALabcIE3k3-d-NqOHqEj8dU1_0J6cUg

Bard was kind to me with praise but this is not something I was looking for. I was looking for CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.

Finding holes would be better, otherwise I may accidentally think that I've figured something important.

Funny that you mention that.

"just skimmed it enough"

I thought / I assumed that is the default state these days?

That's why starting from the TLDR summary. I even explained why I use this style of writing - writing for the internet.

(the original post was in continous format, the pagination happens only when "save as PDF")

The logic - if the summary is good enough then those interested in the content will skim it and maybe even read it. I also use headers so the table of contents is created, allowing to navigate to the relevant parts.

(from the time perspective... (read more)

Thank you. 

"very hard to follow" - honest, genuine feedback.

That's why when posting on my own blog I simplified and preserved the Less Wrong version as PDF as link at the bottom. I'm nicely suprised that you took the effort to read it. Now as I look at it I agree - the order of paragraphs could be better and some tangental / background / rabbit hole information removed.

All the feedback can be addressed / acted upon. If I received such feedback I would surely simplify, make some edits.

It was the "overall policy of not reading it in enough detail"  that made me think about culture / diversity / echo chamber / filter bubble / confirmation bias.

It makes me genuinely curious why I'm receiving negative votes.

I understand that my perspective is limited. I would like to broaden my perspective. -1 or -2 is not a very telling signal.

Is it because of the content?

Is it because of the form factor?

This was a linkpost - linking to the blog (blockchain based publishing platform, less likely to be cancelled)

I genuinely believe that ENDING WAR would be in the best interest of humanity and the strategy of claiming mental health issue, disputed land in international jurisdiction, potentially even "breadbasket fo... (read more)

The blog post describes the potential impact and difficulties of accurate evaluation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_to_Cairo_Railway

So this just happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Nigerien_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

And in the media reporting they said "Mali and Burkina Faso also experienced coup since 2020":

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Malian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2022_Burkina_Faso_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

I genuinely believe that stability brings prosperity, no sane business would invest in such countries.

WOW

Something new dropped: https://twitter.com/FLIxrisk/status/1646539796527951872

Direct link to the policy: https://futureoflife.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/FLI_Policymaking_In_The_Pause.pdf

My reply: https://twitter.com/marsxrobertson/status/1646583463493992462

I'm deeply in "don't trust verify" camp.

Monitor the energy usage.

Climate change is for real and we need to cut the emissions anyway.

My assumption is: "it takes computer power to train the AI"

"Data centres are estimated to be responsible for up to 3% of global electricity consumption today and are ... (read more)

A little bit more explanation / inspiration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics
 

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Another inspiration: https://earthbound.report/2018/01/15/elinor-ostroms-8-rules-for-managing-the-commons/

Laws of AI alignment:

Hu... (read more)

TLDR: more practical applications of existing research.

I think that these days everything competes for attention ("attention economy").

I think that popularising existing research and funding new - can go side by side.

But I wonder if the EA movement is allocating nearly enough money to new RCTs and program evaluations, or to R&D more broadly, so as to build out new evidence in a strategic way. 

I'm more on the practical side, implementing what we know so far.

Just like a brilliant product - will it go to market organically or will require a marketing... (read more)

TLDR: not just economic development and lifting out of poverty but a broader perspective of CLIMATE EMERGENCY and forced migration.

**********

I need to compliment the level of detail 👍

Apologies if my reply is not as detailed, I just want to cover a few points that stood out to me.

CTRL+F "climate change"

I support the thesis of the Deep Adaptation movement - inevitable near-term social collapse.

I collect links to various extreme weather events, most recently in Iran:

• 50C (120F)
• no water
• people on the streets
• police firing shots
• casualties
• #InternetShutdown trendin