brazil84

Karma: 676

brazil84 25 Apr 2011 13:41 UTC
26 points
in reply to: dspeyer’s comment on: Is Kiryas Joel an Unhappy Place?
I think that’s probably correct. According to rumors I hear, the leadership of the community structures everything so that the rank and file will be poor and therefore entitled to the maximum amount of public assistance.

For example, suppose you teach 30 hours a week at the local religious school. In a free market, you might get paid $25k a year for this work and spend $10,000 a year to rent your nearby apartment. But if it’s the same organization which runs the religious school and is also your landlord, you can have an arrangement with a nod and a wink in which you get paid only $15k a year and pay only $4k a year in rent for your apartment.

That way, you show much less income for purposes of taxes and government benefits. Technically this is fraud since you really should be reporting your effective rent subsidy as income. However it would be really difficult for the authorities to actually prove this is what is going on. Especially if all the important communications involved are in Yiddish.

Anyway, I don’t know if this is what happens in KJ but I wouldn’t be surprised at all if they have a million little scams like this going on.

brazil84 15 Apr 2011 13:26 UTC
25 points
on: The Bias You Didn’t Expect
I don’t know about Israel, but I do know that in American courts, cases are not heard in random order on a given day. It’s very common that simple, quick matters are put first so that the attorneys can get out fast.

Presumably, a parole application is either contested by the prosecutor’s office or uncontested. If it’s uncontested, it’s probably pretty quick. Just some perfunctory testimony from the convict and perhaps from the parole services office, a few questions from the judge, and that’s that.

On the other hand, if the parole application is contested, one can expect more in the way of witnesses, cross-examination, and so forth.

It would be natural to put the contested applications towards the end of the morning and afternoon sessions.

Anyway, I am just speculating here. But it does seem suspicious that timing alone could make such a dramatic difference unless some other factor is at work.

brazil84 13 Dec 2015 20:39 UTC
23 points
on: Estimate the Cost of Immortality
How many women would it take to carry a human baby from conception to viable birth in 1 month?

brazil84 27 Jul 2013 15:26 UTC
21 points
in reply to: gwern’s comment on: The Robots, AI, and Unemployment Anti-FAQ

The trucking industry alone employs ~3% of the entire American population. That’s not trivial by any means

I just thought I’d mention that driverless cars can be expected to have a lot of ripple effects. Parking lot attendants; traffic court clerks; insurance claim adjusters; auto body repairmen; the guy whose job it is to calibrate breathalyzers; meter maids; etc. All of these people could face a good deal of unemployment if driverless cars come in.

As far as your larger point goes, I think you make a good point. By looking at AI in a narrow way, Eliezer is giving short shrift to a lot of technological improvements which have the potential to cause unemployment. For example, if a business starts scanning documents and keeping them electronically, it will probably need fewer file clerks and mailroom guys. Does this count as AI? Perhaps and perhaps not, but when people assert that unemployment is due to advances in computers, they certainly are referring to these types of changes.

As far as unemployment itself goes, I also agree with you that even if the theoretical model is correct, there is still surely a lag in reemployment which has the potential to cause disruption. How quickly did the need for blacksmiths drop down to nearly zero? Probably pretty slowly and gently compared to what might be happening now. Perhaps a 50 year old blacksmith would have urged his son to find a different line of work but would have had enough business to see him through.

brazil84 3 May 2011 23:26 UTC
21 points
in reply to: katydee’s comment on: SIAI—An Examination
For one thing, the two risks are interrelated. Money is the life’s blood of any organization. (Indeed, Eliezer regularly emphasizes the importance of funding to SIAI’s mission). Thus, a major financial blow like this is a serious impediment to SIAI’s ability to do its job. If you seriously believe that SIAI is significantly reducing existential risk to mankind, then this theft represents an appreciable increase in existential risk to mankind.

Second, SIAI’s leadership is selling us an approach to thinking which is supposed to be of general application. i.e. it’s not just for preventing ai-related disasters, it’s also supposed to make you better at achieving more mundane goals in life. I can’t say for sure without knowing the details, but if a small not-for-profit has 100k+ stolen from it, it very likely represents a failure of thinking on the part of the organization.

brazil84 9 Jul 2011 21:09 UTC
20 points
in reply to: Robin_Hanson2’s comment on: Politics is the Mind-Killer
Rich sources of finding bias in other people. But if the idea is to remove the log from one’s own eye, it may make sense to steer clear. Personally, I did not learn how to think critically until I went to law school and studied questions which were pretty far removed from the various inflammatory issues floating around out there.

What exceptions should there be to the Hearsay Rule? Should the use of a company car be considered “income” under the Internal Revenue Code? etc. etc.

brazil84 18 Nov 2013 19:36 UTC
18 points
on: Self-serving meta: Whoever keeps block-downvoting me, is there some way to negotiate peace?
It’s happened to me as well. I argued in favor of an unpopular view and some joker down-voted all of my posts, even ones that had nothing to do with the view in question.

My solution is not to worry so much about karma. Even without the problem of block-downvoting, there are too many other problems with it to make it useful feedback.

Perhaps the block-downvoting problem could be handled by publicizing some of the information about peoples’ up and downvotes. On a slightly different note, I would not be surprised at all if it turns out that some posters are operating smite-puppets to downvote their perceived enemies and sock-puppets to upvote their own posts. Or if there are pairs or groups of upvote-allies.

brazil84 19 Jul 2014 15:25 UTC
17 points
on: Look for the Next Tech Gold Rush?
It’s weird to think that there are assets available, right now, which are dirt cheap but will be extremely valuable in 5 or 10 years.

Anyway, I’ve given this issue a decent amount of thought since it’s reasonable to expect that advances in AI will cause a lot of economic disruption and there is a decent chance that people fortunate enough to be invested in the right assets will end up very well off. What will be scarce but desirable in a post-AI world? Land? Rare art? Taxi medallions?

The main idea I have had is to save money by investing in an index fund on the theory that it gives you a pretty good chances of hitting one or more companies that would benefit tremendously from advances in AI.

brazil84 27 Oct 2013 11:04 UTC
17 points
on: Replicating Douglas Lenat’s Traveller TCS win with publicly-known techniques
I don’t know anything about Trillion Credit Squadron, but I would imagine that a game took a few hours, with much of that time being spent rolling dice; looking up what happened; and recording the results. A computer program which simply automated all of that bookkeeping would likely make it a lot easier to play many games and discover the best strategies.

I recall that back in the 80s it became possible to play Risk on a computer. As a result you could play games much quicker and with less mental exertion. And it became a lot easier to observe that controlling Australia at the beginning of the game was a massive advantage.

I wouldn’t be surprised if simple automation of tedium was a big part of Eurisko’s success.

brazil84 26 Sep 2011 11:02 UTC
17 points
in reply to: Sarokrae’s comment on: Undiscriminating Skepticism

The problem with discussing racial differences is that when people say “black”, they’re already making inherent assumptions about genetics. “Black” incorporates an incredible amount of genetic diversity, far more than the label “white”.

I don’t see why this is necessarily a problem. For example, if I observed that generally speaking, the South is warmer than Minnesota, I would be correct even though the South incorporates a lot more geographic diversity than Minnesota.

People distinguish between, say, east Asians and south-east Asians and Indians, but they say “black” as if all of Africa are the same.

For purposes of this discussion, it’s a reasonable category. If there were a large subgroup of blacks which was highly intelligent, then it might be appropriate to use different categories.

Would you note the fact that “100m winners are always black”?

Generally speaking, yes.

Would you be willing to make the statement that “black people are naturally better sprinters”?

Probably not, since sprinting ability seems concentrated in a subgroup of blacks. (Relatively) low intelligence does not seem to be this way.

Perhaps more importantly, either way you look at it, it doesn’t change the fact that genetics is partly responsible for the black/white sprinting gap.

But will that difference makes any meaningful average when you’re talking about “black” people?

I would say “yes” in the same way that the South is generally warmer than Minnesota. Put another way, I’m not aware of any subgroup of blacks which stands out in terms of intelligence. But even if there were, it would not change the fact that there is a black/white IQ gap and genetics is responsible for a lot of it.

There are for more genetic variations within racial groups than between them,

Assuming that’s true, so what?

brazil84 19 Dec 2014 20:40 UTC
16 points
on: Letting it go: when you shouldn’t respond to someone who is wrong
Most of the objectionable statements I encounter online are not flat out wrong—they are ambiguous. EY might say that there is a mismatch between denotation and connotation. It’s reasonable to respond to such statements with a polite request for clarification; for terms to be defined; for examples to be provided; etc.

Also, much of the time when people contradict me, they are not actually contradicting anything I have said—they are arguing against a position they have imagined or invented.

So my suggestion is that if you see something which you believe is wrong, first make sure you understand exactly what is being said.

brazil84 26 Dec 2013 20:16 UTC
16 points
in reply to: Jack’s comment on: Critiquing Gary Taubes, Part 2: Atkins Redux

Playing gotcha with with quotes

Perhaps part of the problem is that it’s not 100% clear what Taubes’ position is. It’s arguably in his financial interest to leave his position ambiguous. There is huge marketing value in giving people permission to pig out; at the same time it’s easier to defend his position if he doesn’t approve of pigging out.

brazil84 21 Jul 2013 21:26 UTC
16 points
in reply to: Eneasz’s comment on: [Link] Eliezer, PZ, Brin, and me on Immortality
Yes, the discussion should have been more focused. Otherwise there is just way too much ground to cover in an hour. There was not enough back and forth over the key points. Still it was pretty interesting (given the participants, how could it not be!)

As far as the argument itself goes, I would have made the following points:
1. If we get to the point where practical immortality is feasible, so much else will have changed about the world that it’s extremely hard to predict what the impact of immortality would be. When you are predicting the future, it’s very hard to get out of one’s current mindset. Which is why the clothing in 1960s sci fi television looks very 60s-ish.
2. I don’t think there is a choice between immortality and unlimited reproduction. Even without immortality, unlimited reproduction is a problem. Immortality only makes it a bit worse. We don’t see the reproduction problem right now because it’s only in the last 50 or 100 years that it’s become possible to reproduce ad libitum. Right now, less than 1% of the world’s population is taking advantage of this opportunity.
3. I agree with Yudkowsky 100% about the silver lining phenomenon. It’s too much of a coincidence to think that we are pretty close to the optimal lifespan for the good of society. I would like to flat out ask Brin and PZ what the optimal lifespan is for the good of society. If they don’t have a specific range which they can justify, then they are not in a position to reject immortality on that basis.

brazil84 20 Jan 2015 3:26 UTC
15 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: [Link] An argument on colds

Something funny is going on with people’s moral reasoning here

Based on my general experience, I would say that most people engage in what I would call “Miss America Moral Reasoning,” i.e. their main priority is to figure out what position will be most impressive to the (perceived) judges.

Do rationalists and/or wannabe rationalists behave in this way? Probably a lot do, but it’s rather hard to assess.

brazil84 4 Aug 2011 21:41 UTC
15 points
in reply to: Eliezer Yudkowsky’s comment on: On the unpopularity of cryonics: life sucks, but at least then you die
I think this is a good point, but perhaps followers of Lesswrong are signing up for cryonics for basically the same reason ordinary people are not. i.e. it’s what high status members of their group do.

brazil84 3 May 2011 21:07 UTC
15 points
in reply to: CarlShulman’s comment on: SIAI—An Examination
Ok, in that case a copy of the police report. As well as the name of the contractor and a copy of his or her contract. How could producing this information prejudice the SIAI’s ability to obtain restitution?

brazil84 30 Dec 2013 21:21 UTC
14 points
on: Critiquing Gary Taubes, Part 4: What Causes Obesity?

This is a poor analogy, because the fact the importance of calories in weight gain is far less obvious than the importance of people in a room’s getting crowded

I agree with this. There is an idea out there that there are people who eat little but become and/or stay fat; and that there are people who eat a lot but stay thin. This is vaguely asserted to be related to peoples’ “metabolism.” For the most part, this is not so. When such people are scientifically tested, it almost invariably turns out that their perceptions of how much they eat are simply wrong.

By contrast, nobody seriously believes that some rooms are crowded because people appear from out of nowhere.

As with a lot of debates, the actual debate stems in large part from ambiguity over what exactly is being debated.

those involved in obesity research did not fail to grasp the factors that drive hunger and sedentary behavior,

Well that seems to be the crux of the dispute, to the extent that there is a dispute. According to you, there is no mainstream consensus position on what causes some peoples’ natural drives to consume too much food. According to Taubes, it’s carbohydrates which causes such drives.

brazil84 4 May 2011 0:24 UTC
14 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: SIAI—An Examination
I agree. It reminds me of a fictional dialogue from a movie about the Apollo 1 disaster:

Clinton Anderson: [at the senate inquiry following the Apollo 1 fire] Colonel, what caused the fire? I’m not talking about wires and oxygen. It seems that some people think that NASA pressured North American to meet unrealistic and arbitrary deadlines and that in turn North American allowed safety to be compromised.

Frank Borman: I won’t deny there’s been pressure to meet deadlines, but safety has never been intentionally compromised.

Clinton Anderson: Then what caused the fire?

Frank Borman: A failure of imagination. We’ve always known there was the possibility of fire in a spacecraft. But the fear was that it would happen in space, when you’re 180 miles from terra firma and the nearest fire station. That was the worry. No one ever imagined it could happen on the ground. If anyone had thought of it, the test would’ve been classified as hazardous. But it wasn’t. We just didn’t think of it. Now who’s fault is that? Well, it’s North American’s fault. It’s NASA’s fault. It’s the fault of every person who ever worked on Apollo. It’s my fault. I didn’t think the test was hazardous. No one did. I wish to God we had.

brazil84 11 Oct 2013 22:36 UTC
13 points
on: Does the simulation argument even need simulations?
My thought is that your hypothesis is pretty similar to the Dust Theory.

http://sciencefiction.com/2011/05/23/science-feature-dust-theory/

And Greg Egan’s counter-argument to the Dust Theory is pretty decent:

However, I think the universe we live in provides strong empirical evidence against the “pure” Dust Theory, because it is far too orderly and obeys far simpler and more homogeneous physical laws than it would need to, merely in order to contain observers with an enduring sense of their own existence. If every arrangement of the dust that contained such observers was realised, then there would be billions of times more arrangements in which the observers were surrounded by chaotic events, than arrangements in which there were uniform physical laws.

I think the same counter-argument applies to your hypothesis.

brazil84 23 Aug 2013 14:06 UTC
13 points
on: Use Your Identity Carefully
Yes, I agree. I strongly suspect it’s the main reason why exercise is useful for weight loss. It doesn’t burn many calories but it makes you start thinking about yourself as someone who cares about his level of fitness.

So when you are faced with a tempting plate of nachos, you can think to yourself “I am a fitness buff and fitness buffs don’t put that kind of junk into their bodies.” From a logical perspective it’s a silly argument but it does seem to make it easier to resist that kind of temptation.