Being the (Pareto) Best in the World
The generalized efficient markets (GEM) principle says, roughly, that things which would give you a big windfall of money and/or status, will not be easy. If such an opportunity were available, someone else would have already taken it. You will never find a $100 bill on the floor of Grand Central Station at rush hour, because someone would have picked it up already.
One way to circumvent GEM is to be the best in the world at some relevant skill. A superhuman with hawk-like eyesight and the speed of the Flash might very well be able to snag $100 bills off the floor of Grand Central. More realistically, even though financial markets are the ur-example of efficiency, a handful of firms do make impressive amounts of money by being faster than anyone else in their market. I’m unlikely to ever find a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, but Terry Tao might. Etc.
But being the best in the world, in a sense sufficient to circumvent GEM, is not as hard as it might seem at first glance (though that doesn’t exactly make it easy). The trick is to exploit dimensionality.
Consider: becoming one of the world’s top experts in proteomics is hard. Becoming one of the world’s top experts in macroeconomic modelling is hard. But how hard is it to become sufficiently expert in proteomics and macroeconomic modelling that nobody is better than you at both simultaneously? In other words, how hard is it to reach the Pareto frontier?
Having reached that Pareto frontier, you will have circumvented the GEM: you will be the single best-qualified person in the world for (some) problems which apply macroeconomic modelling to proteomic data. You will have a realistic shot at a big money/status windfall, with relatively little effort.
(Obviously we’re oversimplifying a lot by putting things like “macroeconomic modelling skill” on a single axis, and breaking it out onto multiple axes would strengthen the main point of this post. On the other hand, it would complicate the explanation; I’m keeping it simple for now.)
Let’s dig into a few details of this approach…
There are many table tennis players, but only one best player in the world. This is a side effect of ranking people on one dimension: there’s only going to be one point furthest to the right (absent a tie).
Pareto optimality pushes us into more dimensions. There’s only one best table tennis player, and only one best 100-meter sprinter, but there can be an unlimited number of Pareto-optimal table tennis/sprinters.
Problem is, for GEM purposes, elbow room matters. Maybe I’m the on the pareto frontier of Bayesian statistics and gerontology, but if there’s one person just little bit better at statistics and worse at gerontology than me, and another person just a little bit better at gerontology and worse at statistics, then GEM only gives me the advantage over a tiny little chunk of the skill-space.
This brings up another aspect…
Claiming a spot on a Pareto frontier gives you some chunk of the skill-space to call your own. But that’s only useful to the extent that your territory contains useful problems.
Two pieces factor in here. First, how large a territory can you claim? This is about elbow room, as in the diagram above. Second, what’s the density of useful problems within this region of skill-space? The table tennis/sprinting space doesn’t have a whole lot going on. Statistics and gerontology sounds more promising. Cryptography and monetary economics is probably a particularly rich Pareto frontier these days. (And of course, we don’t need to stop at two dimensions—but we’re going to stop there in this post in order to keep things simple.)
One problem with this whole GEM-vs-Pareto concept: if chasing a Pareto frontier makes it easier to circumvent GEM and gain a big windfall, then why doesn’t everyone chase a Pareto frontier? Apply GEM to the entire system: why haven’t people already picked up the opportunities lying on all these Pareto frontiers?
Answer: dimensionality. If there’s 100 different specialties, then there’s only 100 people who are the best within their specialty. But there’s 10k pairs of specialties (e.g. statistics/gerontology), 1M triples (e.g. statistics/gerontology/macroeconomics), and something like 10^30 combinations of specialties. And each of those pareto frontiers has room for more than one person, even allowing for elbow room. Even if only a small fraction of those combinations are useful, there’s still a lot of space to stake out a territory.
And to a large extent, people do pursue those frontiers. It’s no secret that an academic can easily find fertile fields by working with someone in a different department. “Interdisciplinary” work has a reputation for being unusually high-yield. Similarly, carrying scientific work from lab to market has a reputation for high yields. Thanks to the “curse” of dimensionality, these goldmines are not in any danger of exhausting.
- How To Get Into Independent Research On Alignment/Agency by 19 Nov 2021 0:00 UTC; 334 points) (
- So, geez there’s a lot of AI content these days by 6 Oct 2022 21:32 UTC; 250 points) (
- 2019 Review: Voting Results! by 1 Feb 2021 3:10 UTC; 99 points) (
- Naive Hypotheses on AI Alignment by 2 Jul 2022 19:03 UTC; 95 points) (
- Writing On The Pareto Frontier by 17 Sep 2021 0:05 UTC; 67 points) (
- Holiday Pitch: Reflecting on Covid and Connection by 22 Apr 2020 19:50 UTC; 58 points) (
- Credence polls for 26 claims from the 2019 Review by 9 Jan 2021 7:13 UTC; 54 points) (
- Let’s Rename Ourselves The “Metacognitive Movement” by 23 Apr 2021 21:06 UTC; 49 points) (
- Prizes for last year’s 2019 Review by 20 Dec 2021 21:58 UTC; 40 points) (
- Characterizing Real-World Agents as a Research Meta-Strategy by 8 Oct 2019 15:32 UTC; 29 points) (
- Optimal Clothing by 31 May 2023 1:00 UTC; 26 points) (
- 16 Mar 2022 18:43 UTC; 25 points)'s comment on Book Launch: The Engines of Cognition by (
- 29 Jan 2021 18:18 UTC; 19 points)'s comment on johnswentworth’s Shortform by (
- LW4EA: Being the (Pareto) Best in the World by 22 Mar 2022 2:58 UTC; 14 points) (EA Forum;
- Specialization by 23 Dec 2021 3:23 UTC; 13 points) (
- Novelty Generation—The Art of Good Ideas by 20 Aug 2022 0:36 UTC; 13 points) (
- 26 Nov 2022 0:53 UTC; 10 points)'s comment on How do I start a programming career in the West? by (
- 15 Dec 2021 10:51 UTC; 10 points)'s comment on How to teach things well by (
- Synthesis of subagents: exercise by 20 Sep 2019 17:24 UTC; 10 points) (
- 6 Mar 2022 18:02 UTC; 10 points)'s comment on March 2022 Welcome & Open Thread by (
- 10 Nov 2019 16:14 UTC; 10 points)'s comment on Self-Keeping Secrets by (
- 17 Sep 2021 23:09 UTC; 9 points)'s comment on Writing On The Pareto Frontier by (
- 22 Dec 2021 13:23 UTC; 8 points)'s comment on Six Specializations Makes You World-Class by (
- 17 Sep 2021 20:39 UTC; 6 points)'s comment on Writing On The Pareto Frontier by (
- 25 Nov 2019 21:37 UTC; 6 points)'s comment on Gears-Level Models are Capital Investments by (
- My notes on: Know what you’re optimising for | Alex Lawsen by 26 Jun 2022 11:04 UTC; 5 points) (EA Forum;
- 5 Jan 2021 19:02 UTC; 5 points)'s comment on Can I have impact if I’m average? by (EA Forum;
- 5 Apr 2023 6:33 UTC; 5 points)'s comment on How To Get Into Independent Research On Alignment/Agency by (
- 23 Nov 2019 22:42 UTC; 5 points)'s comment on The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius by (
- The Engines of Cognition, Volume 2 - Los Angeles LW/ACX Meetup #173 (Wednesday, February 23rd) by 23 Feb 2022 2:08 UTC; 4 points) (
- 1 Aug 2021 14:40 UTC; 3 points)'s comment on Destroying Insecurity and Boosting Confidence Through Your Interests and Values by (
- Skill Frontiers—Los Angeles LW/SSC Meeup #116 (Wednesday, July 3rd) by 3 Jul 2019 20:30 UTC; 3 points) (
- Skill Frontiers—Los Angeles LW/SSC Meetup #115 (Wednesday, June 26th) by 26 Jun 2019 20:26 UTC; 3 points) (
- 30 Dec 2020 3:58 UTC; 3 points)'s comment on Review Voting Thread by (
- 22 Jan 2021 19:17 UTC; 2 points)'s comment on Money Can’t (Easily) Buy Talent by (EA Forum;
- 29 Jun 2022 12:41 UTC; 2 points)'s comment on Jan Czechowski’s Shortform by (
- 21 Jan 2022 9:40 UTC; 1 point)'s comment on How do you write original rationalist essays? by (
This post is on the Pareto frontier of insight and brevity.
I found that this post gave me a helpful outside-view lens through which to think about the capabilities of people in general and myself in particular. For example, I once did a project at work that was well outside my comfort zone, and it stressed me out, but it helped my confidence to think that the project wouldn’t have been in anyone else’s comfort zone either. (And I had that thought because of this post).
Like Dr_Manhattan, I had already grokked this from Scott Adams’ advice, but like Zack_M_Davis, I think the post conveys the insight well.