ambigram

Karma: 372

ambigram May 3, 2022, 4:36 AM
6 points
0
in reply to: AnnaSalamon’s comment on: Narrative Syncing
Potentially related examples:

Group identity statements (pressure not to disagree)
1. A team believes themselves to be the best at what they do and that their training methods etc. are all the best/correct approach. If you suggest a new training method that seems to be yielding good results for other teams, they wouldn’t treat it seriously because it’s a threat to their identity. However, if the team also takes pride in their ability to continuously refine their training methods, they would be happy to discuss the new method.
2. If a group considers themselves to be “anti-pineapple” people, then saying “I like pineapples on my pizza” would signal that you’re not really part of the group. Or maybe they think X is harmful and everyone knows pineapples contain X, then proudly declaring “I like pineapples on pizza” would mark you as an outsider.
Self-fulfilling prophecies (coordination + presure not to disagree publicly)
1. It’s the first week of school and the different student clubs and societies have set up booths to invite students to join. The president of club X tells you that they are the second largest club in the school. This makes club X seem like an established group and is one of the reasons you register your interest and eventually decide to join the group. Later on, you find out that club X actually had very few members initially. The president was basing his claim on the number of people who had registered their interest, not the actual members. However, since he managed to project the image of club X as a large and established group, many people join and it indeed becomes one of the largest student groups.
2. A captain tells the team before a game that they are going to win. The team is motivated and gives their best, therefore winning the game. (Some people may know the statement is false, which they may reveal to others in private conversations. They won’t state it in public because they know that the statement is intended to coordinate the team (i.e. it’s not meant to be literally true) and that they are more likely to succeed if everyone believes it to be true. It is important only for those who think this is a factual statement and are likely to give up if it’s false to believe the statement is true. People who think this is just a pep talk would assume that the captain will say the same thing regardless of what’s true.)
3. The Designated Driver Campaign successfully introduced the practice of having a designated driver when out for drinks by portraying it as a norm in entertainment shows. I’m not sure what it was like, whether people adopted the idea because they thought it was a good one even when they knew it was artificial or because it seemed like everyone was doing it, but here we have a social norm that existed only on TV that became an actual social norm because enough people decided to go along with it.
Group norms (coordination + disagreement is rejected)
1. We use 2 whitespaces instead of 4 whitespaces for indentation as a convention.
2. We act as one team. If we have come to a decision as a team, everyone follows the decision whole-heartedly even if they disagree. If you don’t want to, please quit.

ambigram May 2, 2022, 5:03 PM
5 points
0
in reply to: tamgent’s comment on: Narrative Syncing
I guess I’d say frustrated, worried, confused. I was somewhat surprised/alarmed by the conclusion that Alec was actually trying to request information on how to be considered part of the group.

It seems to me like a rather uncharitable interpretation of Alec’s response, to assume that he just wants to figure out how to belong, rather than genuinely desiring to find out how best to contribute.

We try to have a culture around here where there is no vetted-by-the-group answer to this; we instead try to encourage forming your own inside-view model of how AI risk might work, what paths through to a good future might be possible, etc.

I would be rather insulted by this response, because it implies that I am looking for a vetted-by-the-group answer, and also seems to be criticising me for asking Anna about opimal careers. Firstly, that was never my intent. Secondly, asking an expert for their opinion sounds like a perfectly reasonable course of action to me. However, this does assume that Alec shares my motivations and assumptions.

I’m not sure of my assumptions/beliefs/conclusions though. I might be missing context (e.g. I don’t know what bay area is like, or the cultural norms), and I didn’t really understand the essay (I found the example too distracting for me to focus on the concept of narrative syncing—I like the new examples much more).

ambigram May 2, 2022, 3:05 PM
1 point
0
in reply to: TekhneMakre’s comment on: Narrative Syncing

From my perspective, Berry is helping cooperation with Alec by just making straightforward statements from Berry’s own perspective; then Alec can compare what Berry says with what other people say and with what seems to Alec to match reality and be logically coherent, and then Alec can distinguish who does and doesn’t have informed, logically coherent opinions refined through reason.

Ah yes agreed. Alec doesn’t know that this is what’s happening though (judging from his response to answer 1). Personally I’d default to assuming that Berry will play the role of expert since he’s part of CFAR while I’m just a random computer scientist (from Berry’s perspective). I would switch to a more equal dynamic only if there’s a clear indicator that I should do so.

For example, if a student asks a professor a question, the professor may ask the student for their thoughts instead and then respond thoughtfully to their answer, like they would respond to a fellow professor. Or if a boss asks a new subordinate for their opinion but the subordinate thinks this is a fake question and tries to guess the cryptic instructions instead (because sometimes people ask you questions to hint that you should answer a certain way), the boss may ask someone else who’s been on the team longer. When the new member sees the senior member responding honestly and boss engaging thoughtfully with the response, then the new member would know that the question was genuine.

In the careers example, I can’t tell from the first answer that Anna is trying to engage me as a peer. (I’d imagine someone used to different norms might assume that as the default though.)

ambigram May 1, 2022, 12:07 PM
5 points
0
in reply to: TekhneMakre’s comment on: Narrative Syncing
Hmm if CFAR organizes a workshop, then I would think it is reasonable to assume that the CFAR staff (assuming they are introduced as such) are there as experienced members of the AI risk community who are there to offer guidance to people who are new to the area.

Thus, if I ask them about career paths, I’m not asking for their opinions as individuals, I’m asking for their opinions as people with more expertise than I have.

Two possible motivations I can think of for consulting someone with expertise would be:
1. In school, I ask the teacher when I have a question so they tell me the answer. Likewise, if I’m not sure of the appropriate career move, I should ask an expert in AI risk and they can tell me what to do. If I follow their answer and it fails, then it’s their fault. I would feel betrayed and blame them for wasting my life.
2. Someone who has been working on AI risks would have more knowledge about the area. Thus, I should consult their opinions before deciding what to do. I would feel betrayed if I later find out that they gave me a misleading answer (e.g. telling me to study ML when that’s not what they actually think).
In both cases I’m trying to figure out what to do next, but in the first case I want to be told what to do next, and in the second case I just want more information so I can decide what to do next. (Expert doesn’t mean you bear responsibility for my life decisions, just responsibility for providing accurate information.)

If I’m not wrong, you’re asking about the first case? (My comment was trying to describe the second scenario.)

If it’s just a matter of ambiguity (e.g. I will accompany you just for moral support vs accompany you to provide advice), I would just state it explicitly (e.g. tell you “I won’t be helping you. If someone asks you something and you look to me for help, I’ll just look at you and smile.”) and then do precisely what I said I’ll do.

Otherwise, if it’s a mindset issue (thinking I should do what others tell me to), it’s a deeper problem. If it’s someone I’m close to, I would address the issue directly e.g. saying “If the GPS tells you to drive into a lake and you listen and drown, whose problem is it? I can tell you what to do, but if I’m wrong, you’re the one who will suffer, not me. Even if some very wise person tells you what to do, you still have to check if it makes sense and decide if you will do it, because you have the most to lose. If other people tell you the wrong thing, they can just go ‘Oops sorry! I didn’t realise.’ You, on the other hand, are stuck picking up the pieces. Make sure you think it is worth it before implementing anyone’s advice.” And if that fails, just… let them make their mistakes and eventually they’ll learn from their experiences?

In the case of alignment stuff, no one knows how to cook, so the version of this that’s available is “try to figure the whole thing out for yourself with no assumptions”, which was part of Answer 1.

Not really, saying “I don’t know” is very different from saying “after years of research, we still don’t know”.

“I’m not sure” sounds like the kind of answer a newbie would give, so I’m not really learning anything new from the conversation. Even worse, “don’t know” sounds like you don’t really want to help me—surely an expert knows more than me, if they say they don’t know, then that must mean they just don’t want to share their knowledge.

In contrast, if you said that no one knows because the field is still too new and rapidly changing, then you are giving me an informed opinion. I now know that this is a problem even the experts haven’t solved and can then make decisions based on this information.

ambigram May 1, 2022, 3:29 AM
21 points
0
on: Narrative Syncing
I don’t really understand… Suppose I am a computer scientist who has just learned about AI risks and am eager to contribute, but I’m not sure where to start. Then the natural step would be to ask someone who does have experience in this area for their advice (e.g. what careers should I go into), so I can take advantage of what’s already known rather than starting from scratch.

My surface question is about careers, but my true/implicit question is actually asking for help on getting started contributing to AI risk. It’s not about wanting to know how to be considered a real member of the group? I would be annoyed by the first answer because it answers my superficial question while rebuffing my true question (I still don’t know what to do next!). I am asking you for help and advice, and yet your response is that you have no answer. I mean it is technically true and it would be a good answer for a peer, but in this context it sounds like you’re refusing to help me (you’re not playing your role of advisor/expert?).

Answer 3 is good because you are sharing your experience and offering help. There’s no need to make reference to culture. I would be be just as happy with an answer that says “no one really knows” (instead of “I don’t know”), because then you are telling me the current state of knowledge in the industry.

A similar example:

When I asked someone who was teaching me how to cook how much salt I should add to the dish, they answered “I don’t know”. I was annoyed because it sounded like they were refusing to help me (because they’re not answering my implicit question of how to decide how much salt to put when I cook next time) when they were the expert. It would have been better if they’d said that the saltiness varies based on the type of salt and the other ingredients and your own preferences, etc. so it’s not possible to have a known, fixed amount of salt. What cooks do is that they try adding a bit first (e.g. half a teaspoon) then taste and make adjustments. Nowadays I would know how to rephrase my question to get the answer I want, but I didn’t use to be able to.

ambigram Apr 23, 2022, 7:06 AM
8 points
0
on: All I Know is that I Know Nothing
Oooh, reminds me of a passage:
Warning: also contains spoilers for
Wizard of Oz
Excerpt (after the Wizard has revealed himself to be a fraud):
“I think you are a very bad man,” said Dorothy.
“Oh, no, my dear; I’m really a very good man, but I’m a very bad Wizard, I must admit.”
“Can’t you give me brains?” asked the Scarecrow.
“You don’t need them. You are learning something every day. A baby has brains, but it doesn’t know much. Experience is the only thing that brings knowledge, and the longer you are on earth the more experience you are sure to get.”
“That may all be true,” said the Scarecrow, “but I shall be very unhappy unless you give me brains.”
The false Wizard looked at him carefully.
“Well,” he said with a sigh, “I’m not much of a magician, as I said; but if you will come to me tomorrow morning, I will stuff your head with brains. I cannot tell you how to use them, however; you must find that out for yourself.”
“Oh, thank you—thank you!” cried the Scarecrow. “I’ll find a way to use them, never fear!”
“But how about my courage?” asked the Lion anxiously.
“You have plenty of courage, I am sure,” answered Oz. “All you need is confidence in yourself. There is no living thing that is not afraid when it faces danger. The True courage is in facing danger when you are afraid, and that kind of courage you have in plenty.”
“Perhaps I have, but I’m scared just the same,” said the Lion. “I shall really be very unhappy unless you give me the sort of courage that makes one forget he is afraid.”
“Very well, I will give you that sort of courage tomorrow,” replied Oz.
“How about my heart?” asked the Tin Woodman.
“Why, as for that,” answered Oz, “I think you are wrong to want a heart. It makes most people unhappy. If you only knew it, you are in luck not to have a heart.”
“That must be a matter of opinion,” said the Tin Woodman. “For my part, I will bear all the unhappiness without a murmur, if you will give me the heart.”
“Very well,” answered Oz meekly. “Come to me tomorrow and you shall have a heart. I have played Wizard for so many years that I may as well continue the part a little longer.”

ambigram Apr 12, 2022, 4:31 PM
3 points
0
on: Epistemic Slipperiness
Hmm, “slipperiness” sounds like a concept that’s more useful for observing my thoughts, rather than a way to think about my interactions with others.

I can tell when my mind is trying to gloss over something (e.g. when I don’t feel like specifying my entire chain of thought, then when I do try writing out a proper explanation, I start seeing loopholes and finding counter examples. Or when I dismiss something too quickly or for no reason.).

However, if I sense that someone’s not fully engaging with my points, how do I know if that’s because I’ve misunderstood them, or because they have knowledge they’re unable to articulate, or because there’s motivated reasoning at play etc.?

If I can’t tell, then I’d think it makes sense to treat it as a general case of communication failure instead of a specific case of “slipperiness”, i.e. I would try to understand what they are saying, find and ask about the apparent contradiction stated from their perspective, and observe their response.

If I do manage to identify it as one of the “slipperiness” cases, then different examples would require different approaches (e.g. disengage for manipulators, give space to calm down for emotional outbursts), so it wouldn’t make sense to treat them as a general “slipperiness” case?

ambigram Mar 18, 2022, 5:05 PM
3 points
0
on: Using GPT-3 for preventing conflict during messaging — a pitch for an app
This sounds like an interesting idea, it would be nice to have a tool that reminds us to be our better selves. However, it seems like it’d be quite problematic to let GPT mediate our communications. Besides the issues discussed in the other comments, I also think letting GPT handle the translation encourages a more superficial form of NVC. I think the main reason NVC works is not that the framework itself lets people communicate using non-violent language. Rather, it works because using the framework encourages people to be more emotionally aware and empathetic.
As a sender, NVC helps me because:
- It makes me more aware of the inferences I am making (which may be false) based on my observations (which may not be complete). It reminds me that what I perceive is only my interpretation, which may not be true!
- It helps me pay more attention to what I’m feeling and what I’m lacking, so I can focus more on problem solving (i.e. finding ways to meet my needs), rather than emotional arguments.
  - Note that sometimes, cooperative problem solving is not our goal, in which case we may not want to use NVC.
As a listener, NVC helps me because:
- It reminds me that people usually have a valid reason why they are upset, which helps me be more empathetic. For example, I used to think people were angry at me because I didn’t do what they say, but later realised it was because they genuinely found my actions to be upsetting (e.g. they may find messiness to be distracting, whereas I don’t notice it).
  - Note that this is not always true, such as when someone is saying something to manipulate you.
My concerns with using GPT to handle the NVC translation are as follows:
- I suspect an NVC translator would encourage people to “outsource” this thinking to GPT. This would lead to people following the framework without genuinely going through the process of thinking through their (or their partner’s) emotions and needs. This means people don’t really get to practise the NVC skills, and so don’t truly benefit from NVC.
- Knowing that others may be using a translator may also make the conversation feel less genuine because it becomes easy to fake it (e.g. maybe they are actually really mad at me and can’t be bothered to make the effort to go through the NVC thought process, and are just using the translator because they believe it will get a better response).
- When it’s presented as a translation, it gives the impression that the translation is the real answer, rather than just one of many possible answers.
(Also, I think some of the examples reflect a different problem that won’t be solved by NVC translation. For example, I think a better approach for the covid vaccine example would be asking the other person why they believe what they believe, rather than asking them to read the research with you.)
The idea of a tool to help open up the conversation is interesting though, so here are two possible alternatives I can think of (which may not be feasible):
- Instead of translating your words, the app detects messages with strong negative emotions, and prompts you to reconsider when you send it, similar to how Outlook reminds you if you mention “attachment” in your email but don’t attach any files. This should be something that is enabled by the user, so it’s like a reminder from our calmer selves to our more impulsive selves to think through before sending.
- Instead of providing a single translation, the app suggests possible feelings/needs based on other people’s experiences, while making it clear that yours may be different. For example, “Sometimes people say X because they are feeling Y1 and want Z1, or because they are feeling Y2 and want Z2. Do you feel like this applies to you? Or maybe you’re feeling something else?”

ambigram Mar 12, 2022, 10:56 AM
15 points
0
in reply to: LoganStrohl’s comment on: Meadow Theory
I shared a similar experience reading this essay and wanted to figure out why, so I’ve tried writing out some of my observations/experiences, hopefully they’ll help in some way?
Before I start, I’d just like to add that I enjoyed this essay. It raises a lot of interesting points that provide food for thought e.g. uncertainty about location of hazards is what causes contraction, people can also be posts, how fear and eagerness are trying to protect the same thing. And the illustrations are pretty and helpful!
Below are my observations from reading the essay. They are my own personal experience, which may be very different from others’ experiences! Many things are obvious to others but not to me, so it might just be a me-not-understanding, rather than an issue with the writing.
Anyway, here’s the list:
Insufficient explanation
There seem to be two forms of meadow theory I can read from the essay. I understand and agree with the weak form, but the essay seems to be claiming the strong form without providing much explanation. (The strong form seems possibly true when I think about it, but it’s not obvious to me from the essay.)
- Weak form: (my interpretation of the essay, which may be different from the author’s original intent...)
  - In scenarios where we want everyone to be able to explore freely despite the presence of unknown hazards, people think we should (primarily) help others by trying to remove all hazards, or following them around to stop them from getting into dangerous situations. In other words, we are trying to eliminate danger (that we perceive) from other peoples’ experiences.
  - This works in certain situations (e.g. baby-proofing a room), but tends to be unrealistic and unsustainable as a general, long-term solution.
  - Observe that the main problem is not the fact that there are hazards, but that we become constrained by our fear of getting hurt because we are uncertain of where the dangers lie.
  - Thus, a better approach would be to help them learn to work in an environment with unknown hazards, by helping them figure out where the hazards are, and teaching them how to identify potentially dangerous areas and communicate such information to others (hazards here includes people’s boundaries, fences, wants, and needs).
- Strong form: (my attempt to follow the original essay, but I don’t really understand it)
  - The job of a parent (in the meadow) is to navigate the child-post interaction.
  - Similarly, the job of parents, managers, generals etc. in the real world is managing how their people handle hazards as they explore? (Why? Any examples other than parenting?)
  - When you know there is a hazard but are not sure where it is, you undergo a contraction because you are afraid of getting hurt.
  - Contraction is bad. (I think I agree, but why? Always bad or bad in certain contexts?)
  - Thus, the main responsibility of parents (and any cooperative individual) is to help their child/team etc. locate the hazards or identify potentially dangerous areas, so they can remain relatively expansive. (Main responsibility with respect to helping people stay safe or main responsibility in general?)
If the intent of the essay is to convey the weak form, then the essay seems to make unnecessary unjustified claims. This is distracting, because I keep trying to check if I agree or disagree with each claim (because it is not immediately obvious if the statement is true or false) when they aren’t important for understanding the main point. This makes it harder to focus on the core idea.
However, the essay seems to be arguing for the stronger form. In that case, the essay doesn’t seem to be providing enough explanations. Instead, the reader has to find justifications for the claims, so that they can understand and make use of the theory.
Example:
...it is the claim of this theory and this philosophy that (undergoing a contraction) is bad.
It is not clear why I should agree that this is bad (especially when the essay states that running is a metaphor for human activity, which means that I don’t just have to agree that contracting in this example is bad, but that contracting in all human activity is bad).
It is immediately obvious to me that in scenarios where we want to explore as much of the meadow as possible, undergoing a contraction would be bad, because then we would be able to explore less space within the same amount of time.
However, I don’t immediately see why undergoing a contraction is bad in general. The reader seems to be expected to simply agree, or to find our own justifications for why this may be true. I would have expected the essay to at least provide the motivation behind the claim, such as providing examples of where this fear-driven contraction has led to negative consequences.
Meadow example is introduced as a metaphor
The essay presents the meadow example as a metaphor immediately, instead of first trying to explain the meadow example, then showing how real life situations are similar to the meadow example.
I think this may contribute to the feeling of being “yanked”, because the reader is not given time to understand the example first, before seeing how it relates to their life. Instead, the reader is instructed to view real life (e.g. human activity) via a very specific lens (e.g. running in a meadow), so now I am trying to understand the example while trying to avoid being constrained by the lens that the author provides, all the while trying to figure out what “human activity” might refer to.
Meadow metaphor is very broad
Running in a meadow represents “human activity”, but “human activity” is so general that I don’t have a concrete way of understanding the metaphor. It also makes it more overwhelming because then any argument I evaluate has to apply to all possible human activity, rather than just a specific scenario. It feels a bit like we’re asked to agree or disagree with an entire worldview/life philosophy (our main job when helping others in any scenario is to help them locate hazards), rather than agree or disagree with a specific claim in a specific context (when we want people to be able to freely explore a space that has unknown hazards, it is better to help them locate hazards), when the arguments only cover a specific context (parenting).
Parenting appears in both the metaphor and the example/application
I find it confusing that the parent appears in both the metaphor (parent in the meadow) and the application (parenting in general).
Example:
...the job of the parent is to somehow navigate the child-post interaction.
Meadow-parent or real parent? The paragraphs building up to this statement show how this is true for the parent in the meadow, but don’t provide support for the broader claim that this is true for parenting in general. If I want my child to explore freely in a meadow, then my job is to navigate the child-post interaction. But it is not obvious to me that the main concern of a parent is always to ensure that their child is able explore reality freely.
Using a parent in the meadow example brings in extra connotations
A parent-child relationship has a lot of connotations (which can vary based on culture and personal values and experiences). By using a parent in the meadow example, it seems to suggest that this relationship is core to the metaphor. This seems to give the metaphor more “baggage”, making it harder to see how it relates to other scenarios.
For example, when I try to see how it relates to project management, I keep getting distracted by the fact that my relationship with my project manager is very different from my relationship with my parent. My parent was responsible for me in a way that my project manager isn’t. My parent knew a lot more than me, yet I can see many hazards that my project manager can’t. My parent wanted me to explore, but my manager wants us to move in a specific direction.
What links here?
- MSRayne's comment on Benign Boundary Violations by Duncan Sabien (Inactive) (Jun 22, 2022, 9:19 PM; 3 points)