My data point: Tentative “+1” for Pomodoro.
I use Pomodoro, but I don’t take breaks (I have a lot of trouble returning to work if I do) - I use the 5 minutes to handle email, etc. The main advantage is it keeps me aware of the passage of time, and helps me pace myself. I am a student who spends most hours of my day studying lecture notes.
I’ve seen Pomodoro brought up a number of times. Should we put together a survey to tally how many have tried it, and how many have benefited?
Admittedly, there’s a world of difference between tricking yourselves and tricking others, but I think everyone agrees that it’s still worthwhile.
That’s pretty much my same attitude on the situation, as well. :)
Some people have demonstrated how telling a very similar lie, but for any case other than a “good cause,” is clearly unethical. I definitely agree with that
As much as I’m reluctant to say it, though… I think “The Ends Justify The Means” comes into play, though. If hypothetical jkafuman didn’t mention that he would ALSO donate that same amount if you DIDN’T donate, I wouldn’t blame him. (In fact I may thank him, possibly.)
(I’m not advocating purely utilitarian morality—I think the morality is ultimately a balance between “don’t mislead people” and “save lives from malaria”)
Thanks for doing this. Donating $300.
“Give me proof we can exist peacefully (a ‘friendly humanity’, if you will), or I’ll have to [threat] in self-defense.”
(A variation on the “I’m already free” line)
This is actually a pretty good one. Points for outside the box thinking. rimshot
OP, I’m sorry you got slammed with downvotes. I hope you stick around. (I didn’t actually try to follow the argument so this isn’t a comment on the discussion itself, I just want to extend condolences because that many downvotes are never fun)
I wouldn’t do that if I were you.
please.
Honest question: are you proposing we avoid discussing the problem entirely?
Personally, I think there is more to be gained here than just “how will an AI try to get out and how can we prevent it.” For me, it’s gotten me to actually think about the benefits and pitfalls of a transhuman AI (friendly or otherwise) rather than just knowing intellectually, “there are large potential benefits and pitfalls” which was my previous level of understanding.
Edit: I’ve modified the OP to include your concerns. They’re definitely valid, but I think this is still a good discussion for my reasons above.
It doesn’t matter what expense account you’re taking it from—you can always compare two things and say, which is morally correct? If it’s more moral to give to malaria than purchase cryogenics, then you shouldn’t purchase cryogenics and instead give to malaria. If it’s more moral to give to purchase cryogenics instead of making frivolous expenses, then you should purchase cryogenics.
(Also, I don’t know about you, but my frivolous expense fund isn’t nearly big enough to eradicate malaria, much less purchase cryogenics afterward.)
Really, what you’re asking here is “is paying for cryonic suspensions the most cost-effective known way of purchasing person-neutral QALYs in the entire world?” That’s an extremely implausible position that almost no one defends. Even conditional on thinking cryonics was extraordinarily great, paying for research, e.g. scientific tests of the effectiveness of cryonic suspension and related biology, would be better. Thanks for saying that. I had the (incorrect) impression that there were many on LessWrong who did believe that.
future people might invent a perfect fire-suppression system, [...] But that wouldn’t mean the early purchases were foolish Unless the post was edited, I don’t think the OP was saying it was foolish; he was saying the payout of the decision was 0. Which is true, whether you’re talking about fire insurance or cryogenics (unless there’s a cancellation option in your contract). Now, there’s utility in peace-of-mind which might make it small but not zero, but the point stands.
Thanks for posing it in this form—this has been my line of thinking for some time. I agree that it is laudable to weigh other’s lives as equal to your own, here.
Personally, though I haven’t looked up enough statistics to do the math, my initial approximation says I think supporting charities that fight malaria (etc) is better. My reasoning:
Lives saved now are not just a scalar amount added to the “total number of quality years lived by human beings added across all time”—they are also an investment in the future. Fighting malaria will help speed industrialization (etc) in countries that do not yet contribute as much to research, etc.
In general, most human beings leave a positive impact on society. They invest in their children, perform research, build cities, etc. They give birth to more children, which results in more humans alive when immortality does become reality.
4 isn’t necessarily true—the boxbuilder team was not confident about their friendliness code, and the releaser team was more confident about their friendlines code. But I like the argument. :)
I’m sure many doctors do as you describe, but in my experience, most specialists physicians don’t fall into that trap. They will prescribe “un-proven” and un-approved treatments if they think the risk-benefit relationship is favorable. However, it takes significantly more knowledge about the disease, your specific patient, and all the latest research to make a decision like that. Furthermore, if you’re wrong, it’s your hide on the line. If your family doctor knows all that, then they’re a specialist.
The cost of treatment/no treatment: I’m going to disagree with you strongly there. That’s drilled into our head every day in school. The cost to the patient, the cost to society, the side-effects the patient experiences, the risk of serious adverse reactions, the risk of going without treatment, the chance that the treatment doesn’t even work at all (in the case of the unproven treatments)… we talk about this almost every day.
So, agreed: “Not proven beyond a wide margin of error” is not the same as “no evidence”, however I don’t think many doctors believe that. That is, it’s not a flaw of rationality—it is either a convenience thing, a lawsuit thing, or most often limits to the doctor’s knowledge.
Thanks for the link!