DirectedEvolution

Karma: 11,533

Pandemic Prediction Checklist: H5N1

Pandemic Prediction Checklist: Monkeypox

Correlation may imply some sort of causal link.

For guessing its direction, simple models help you think.

Controlled experiments, if they are well beyond the brink

Of .05 significance will make your unknowns shrink.

Replications show there’s something new under the sun.

Did one cause the other? Did the other cause the one?

Are they both controlled by what has already begun?

Or was it their coincidence that caused it to be done?

DirectedEvolution Jul 15, 2025, 3:04 PM
8 points
2
on: What do you Want out of Literature Reviews?
Put your most important, concrete takeaways first, in a form anyone can understand. Write with authority. Put your methods, motives, and analysis details later.

Right now, I have to read too much text to figure out what you’re claiming and why it matters, even in the summary. For example, for your gargling paper, you could have led with:

“A few tiny studies show water gargling prevents illness, but I suspect publication bias is skewing the reported results. Notably, one paper showed long-term side effects from frequent gargling. In this review, I walk through the most important results and methods from each of these studies and discuss why I think there’s a risk of publication bias. For context, I’m an independent researcher with [relevant background qualifications] and this is a personal blog post, not traditional peer-reviewed research.”

DirectedEvolution Jul 1, 2025, 9:42 AM
3 points
2
in reply to: TimothyTV’s comment on: johnswentworth’s Shortform
I think that these are genuinely hard questions to answer in a scientific way. My own speculation is that using AI to solve problems is a skill of its own, along with recognizing which problems they are currently not good for. Some use of LLMs teaches these skills, which is useful.
I think a potential failure mode for AI might be when people systematically choose to work on lower-impact problems that AI can be used to solve, rather than higher-impact problems that AI is less useful for but that can be solved in other ways. Of course, AI can also increase people’s ambitions by unlocking the ability to pursue higher-impact goals they would not have been able to otherwise achieve. Whether or not AI increases or decreases human ambition on net seems like a key question.
In my world, I see limited use of AI except as a complement to traditional internet search, a coding assistant by competent programmers, a sort of Grammarly on steroids, an OK-at-best tutor that’s cheap and always available on any topic, and a way to get meaningless paperwork done faster. These use cases all seem basically ambition-enhancing to me. That’s the reason I asked John why he’s worried about this version of AI. My experience is that once I gained some familiarity with the limitations of AI, it’s been a straightforwaredly useful tool, with none of the serious downsides I have experienced from social media and smartphones.
The issues I’ve seen seem to have to do with using AI to deepfake political policy proposals, homework, blog posts, and job applications. These are genuine and serious problems, but mainly have to do with adding a tremendous amount of noise to collective discourse rather than the self-sabotage enabled by smartphones and social media. So I’m wondering if John’s more concerned about those social issues or by some sort of self-sabotage capacity from AI that I’m not seeing. Using AI to do your homework is obviously self-sabotage, but given the context I’m assuming that’s not what John’s talking about.

DirectedEvolution Jul 1, 2025, 9:27 AM
2 points
1
in reply to: lesswronguser123’s comment on: Support for bedrock liberal principles seems to be in pretty bad shape these days
Agreed. Perhaps a better test of a society’s relative liberality is to examine its worst examples of infringements of liberal views—its worst censorship, persecution of demographic groups, limits on property rights, and so on, defining these terms broadly.
I think that the tradeoff between allowing people to pursue their cultural and aesthetic agendas through legal means and preserving a basically liberal government and intercultural framework in which those agendas are pursued is an extremely difficult one to get right. It tends to produce a sense of paradox and hypocrisy. It’s also very hard to figure out when we’re facing a slippery slope into illiberalism or a non-preferred implemention of the tradeoffs inherent in liberalism.
In the context of a basically liberal society, like the USA where I live, I tend to perceive most of the flaws in liberalism as stemming from human nature rather than capture of power centers by committed illiberal ideologues. Conservatives and liberals in the USA both see themselves as basically sticking up for what we’re here referring to as “liberal” values, and I think most members of both parties, even the far left and far right, see themselves as generally presenting contrasting versions of “liberalism.” So I think we have a case here where most US citizens see their nation as less liberal than it really is, in contrast to the example you give of China, a nation where most Chinese citizens may see their nation as more liberal than it really is.

DirectedEvolution Jul 1, 2025, 3:12 AM
2 points
−2
in reply to: lesswronguser123’s comment on: Support for bedrock liberal principles seems to be in pretty bad shape these days
It sounds like what you are hoping for is to avoid illiberal backsliding by making everybody crystal-clear on what liberalism is and giving them a deep understanding of why they should support it.
Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s tractable. Fortunately, I don’t think it’s necessary. How successful have China and Myanmar been in convincing the world they being run on liberal principles?
My view is that most people are pretty clear on the concrete facts of life that matter for liberalism.
- Am I being persecuted for my beliefs?
- Is my life at risk due to my identity?
- Can I say what I want?
- Is my property secure, and am I free to transact?
When people debate politics, I contend they typically are debating over tradeoffs inherent in liberal ideas, or between values orthogonal to liberalism. Examples of the latter include dealing with externalities such as pollution, environmental destruction, or public aesthetics. Note that a liberal society can still care about things other than liberalism, and sometimes that will result in tradeoffs with liberalism-maximalism. Making a democratic choice for non-liberal maximalism is still a position compatible with liberalism.

DirectedEvolution Jul 1, 2025, 12:01 AM
3 points
0
in reply to: TimothyTV’s comment on: johnswentworth’s Shortform
Setting aside cheating, do you think LLMs are diminishing opportunities for thought, or redistributing them to other topics? And why?

DirectedEvolution Jun 30, 2025, 6:59 PM
3 points
0
in reply to: lesswronguser123’s comment on: Support for bedrock liberal principles seems to be in pretty bad shape these days
Most of the current debates about liberalism are debates about how to trade off between competing liberal priorities. I would regard these debates about exceptions to free speech—whether any are tolerated, and which ones—as debates within a common liberal framework. Typically, proponents of each site, all of whom are taking one liberal view or another, cast their opponents as illiberal (in the theory sense, not the American “progressive-vibe” sense). Opponents reject this label because they genuinely don’t perceive themselves that way.
I think the whole debate would be better if we recognized that there are exist high-stakes tradeoffs between competing liberal priorities, and that it’s these competing visions of liberalism that are at the heart of contemporary political discourse in America.

DirectedEvolution Jun 30, 2025, 5:05 AM
4 points
2
in reply to: lesswronguser123’s comment on: Support for bedrock liberal principles seems to be in pretty bad shape these days
The distinction I’m driving at is between making an in-depth intellectual argument about liberalism (which is what you and Gordon are focused on) and a winning emotional appeal (which is what I’m focused on).

My claim is that support for liberalism has been eroded by too few winning emotional appeals for it, and that they’re actually easy to make. It’s not necessary to address the ambiguities. Just share anecdotes that stir up positive feelings in the right direction.

DirectedEvolution Jun 29, 2025, 10:10 PM
8 points
0
in reply to: johnswentworth’s comment on: johnswentworth’s Shortform
Why do you think LLMs are moving people backwards? With phones, it was their attention-sucking nature. What is it with LLMs?

DirectedEvolution Jun 29, 2025, 9:55 PM
4 points
2
in reply to: Gordon Seidoh Worley’s comment on: Support for bedrock liberal principles seems to be in pretty bad shape these days
Controversial ideas need to be defended bravely, clearly, and often to keep them in the Overton Window. A persistent drip of timely examples and anecdotes combined with a simple interpretation is much more effective. Ideas like “free speech” are very easy to defend in a simple way. Just pointing out that “in Britain, they just put someone on trial for calling someone a Karen” is a fine way to argue for continuing to protect free speech, without needing to get into any abstractions.

DirectedEvolution Jun 29, 2025, 6:13 PM
4 points
0
in reply to: Gordon Seidoh Worley’s comment on: Support for bedrock liberal principles seems to be in pretty bad shape these days
Disagree. People are plenty smart enough to understand them. The case for them just doesn’t get made vigorously.

DirectedEvolution Jun 26, 2025, 3:01 PM
9 points
1
in reply to: johnswentworth’s comment on: johnswentworth’s Shortform
I find conversations more meaningful than many comparably-fun activities. What provides the meaning is my intuition about the opportunities the conversation can lead to and the update in how I’m perceived by my counterpart. As a secondary effect, conversations exercise and test my ability to think on my feet.
Flirtation can lead to sex, a coffee break chat with a collaborator can lead to a new project, a talk with anyone can lead to closer friendship. Flirtation suggests I’m more desirable than I thought, talk about projects that I’m regarded as more capable, talk with acquaintances that I’m charismatic.
These social updates and the mental exercise conversation provides are why I seek out conversation compared to many other more-fun activities. Also, I have to recognize that I probably value conversation for its own sake above and beyond these instrumental purposes. It just feels like it ought to be part of a good life aesthetic, like eating fresh fruits and vegetables.

DirectedEvolution Jun 14, 2025, 7:11 PM
3 points
1
in reply to: Alexander Gietelink Oldenziel’s comment on: Annapurna’s Shortform
I’m curious whether the US will end up working with Ukraine’s drone manufacturers to build up our own drone manufacturing capabilities.

DirectedEvolution Jun 12, 2025, 12:51 AM
2 points
0
in reply to: Viliam’s comment on: AllAmericanBreakfast’s Shortform
“Russia is the land of Dostoyevsky, who I’ve heard is one of our greatest writers!”

DirectedEvolution Jun 11, 2025, 5:37 PM
2 points
0
in reply to: Garrett Baker’s comment on: lc’s Shortform
Interesting! I was born into a more or less agnostic family and considered myself an atheist by the time I was in middle school.

DirectedEvolution Jun 11, 2025, 5:35 PM
11 points
5
in reply to: johnswentworth’s comment on: johnswentworth’s Shortform
I interpret the confusion around flirting as “life imitating art” — specifically, there is a cultural narrative about how flirting works that a lot of socially awkward people are trying to implement.
That means there are big discrepancies between how experts flirt and how most people flirt. It also means that most people have to learn how to read the flirtation signals of other low-flirtation-skill people.
The cultural narrative around flirting therefore doesn’t exactly match practice, even though it influences practice.
It doesn’t necessarily take that much flirting to build enough confidence to ask someone out. Are they alone at a party? Is your conversation with them going on longer than for most people? Is it fun? You’re all set.

DirectedEvolution Jun 11, 2025, 5:17 PM
2 points
0
in reply to: Garrett Baker’s comment on: lc’s Shortform
Fair point. It would be interesting to talk to people who lost their religion around that time and ask them what influenced them.

DirectedEvolution Jun 11, 2025, 10:49 AM
6 points
0
in reply to: sunwillrise’s comment on: lc’s Shortform
It seems to me there is plenty of lively debate on topics related to politics, economics, and technology issues in the same nerd niches that used to debate atheism. I really do think that debate about new atheism has declined far more than debate around these other topics.

DirectedEvolution Jun 11, 2025, 4:25 AM
12 points
2
in reply to: lc’s comment on: lc’s Shortform
This is all speculative, but I think some of this might be due to differences in how algorithms pick content to show users, the aging or death of influential figures in the New Atheist movement, and changes with respect to how religion makes its way into our lives.
- Islamic terrorism and the Catholic pedophelia scandals aren’t as much of a hot topic anymore.
- Evangelists may have concluded that participating in debates about religion is not an effective way to win converts (they may have genuinely been uncertain about this in the past and updated based on their experiences confronting the New Atheists).
- Chris Hitchens is dead. Man that guy could debate. He was truly a singular figure. Dawkins is 84 instead of 64, and Harris is 58 instead of 38. Those who were receptive to their message have picked it up, but we may not feel the need to replicate their debates, since all the recordings and arguments are still available and haven’t changed (it’s not like new evidence has come to light bearing on the question!).
- The internet was still relatively young and I think we were all operating more on the theory that the ability to expose others to our favorite argument might really prove persuasive. I think that’s one of the biggest updates on human nature that the internet has demonstrated—it is not very possible to change somebody’s mind by winning an argument against them. That’s probably something that intellectuals have known for a long time, but the internet gave everybody the chance to be an intellectual. In doing so, we all discovered that for almost everybody, it’s all about identity politics. Earnest debate can give the impression that the debaters are unaware of this, laboring under the delusion that winning the argument might change the other person’s mind.
- A lot of the debates people are having now about the God question are just rehashing stuff that came before, and it’s less interesting. It’s not breaking new intellectual ground. It’s just two people working their way through ideas other people have already thought about before them.
- The algorithms and advertisements that link us to arguments about topics like atheism have changed in the last 20 years. Using the internet feels qualitatively different. I know I can find just about any content I want. The question is what I want to spend my time on. There is much less of a feeling of mystery and wonder stumbling upon a debate about the existence of God. I don’t feel like I have happened upon enlightened discourse. I just feel I’ve been served a slab of Content by an unfeeling algorithm, and it’s hard to care.

DirectedEvolution Jun 10, 2025, 4:56 PM
14 points
10
in reply to: Richard_Kennaway’s comment on: Read the Pricing First
It might also be for investors. Tech companies often want to position themselves as “growth companies.” If a company describes itself as a bundle of concrete existing services, that feels limited. But who would dare to claim there are limits to the potential of a Customer Engagement Platform with powerful AI?

DirectedEvolution Jun 10, 2025, 4:30 PM
4 points
0
in reply to: Viliam’s comment on: AllAmericanBreakfast’s Shortform
:P if I was in those circles, I might point out that all the great Russian authors spill a lot of ink criticizing the Russian government.