Working independently on making AI systems reason safely about decision theory and acausal interactions, collaborating with Caspar Oesterheld and Emery Cooper.
I try to check the LessWrong infrequently. If you wanna get in touch, you can use my admonymous link and leave your email address there, so I can reply to you! (If you don’t include some contact details in your message, I can’t reply)
You can also just send me thoughts and questions anonymously!
How others can help me
Be interested in working on/implementing ideas from research on acausal cooperations! Or connect me with people who might be.
How I can help others
Ask me about acausal stuff!
Or any of my background: Before doing independent research, I worked for the Center on Long-Term Risk on s-risk reduction projects (hiring, community building, and grantmaking.) Previously, I was a guest manager at the EA Infrastructure Fund (2021), did some research for 1 Day Sooner on Human Challenge Trials for Covid vaccines (2020), did the summer research fellowship at FHI writing about IDA (2019), worked a few hours a week for CEA on local groups mentoring for a few months (2018), and helped a little bit with organizing EA Oxford (2018/19). I studied PPE at Oxford (2018-2021) and psychology in Freiburg (2015-2018.)
I also have things to say about mental health and advice for taking a break from work.
3 votes
Overall karma indicates overall quality.
1 vote
Agreement karma indicates agreement, separate from overall quality.
[disclaimer: I haven’t actually read the short story]
This part from your quote
makes me think that this is not just about rationalisation but about the (wrong) belief that there can be no happiness without suffering (or without evil which is slightly different). In fact, you could interpret it to think that the only reason that the child in misery is necessary for the other people’s happiness is because the other people believe it to be necessary. Because they believe that there must be suffering/evil for true happiness and they couldn’t cope otherwise. This would fit with the short story giving no causal explanation as to why the child has to be in misery to sustain the happiness of the others. If you take them at face value, these sentences actually read like they are the allegedly missing causal explanation: ” It is the existence of the child, and their knowledge of its existence, that makes possible the nobility of their architecture, the poignancy of their music, the profundity of their science.”
Slightly different point: The ones that walk away sort of remind me a bit of HPMOR’s Harry’s deliberate rejection of/accidental inability to accept necessary evils. (I think Harry has both of those going on.)