that the government isn’t profit-maximizing.
I’m saying that that is the case currently and agreeing with ChristianKI that that incentives pressure against that under your regime.
If, as you are proposing, being not-profit-maximizing is the reason USPS hasn’t driven FedEx out of business
and being not-profit-maximizing is the result of current incentives
and someone claims, as ChristianKI does, that the incentives for being not-profit-maximizing change under your proposed take-the-wealth regime
then the evidential weight of USPS not driving FedEx out of business under the current regime is weakened quite a bit since the very thing under question is that that will remain the case.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but I will note that there are a lot of alternatives to many of Google’s tools. Some are better, some are nearly as good, some are much worse, but I feel like you could get a long way to systems that help humans work together with all of the free and open source replacements that are out there.
In other words, I’m not so sure that Google and other Google-esque companies are a necessary component of tools to help us work together.
I do not think the government currently has anything to gain by out-competing FedEx. It seems like you’re just kinda just re-asserting the very thing that ChristianKl is questioning.
Yes, definitely. The sparse nature of expertise networks in most areas still seems to really rear its head.
This isn’t to say it’s impossible. Like you say approaching people out of the blue is a good idea, and I can say with experience that it works! It’s just that (maybe?) there are greater barriers for these people.
It’s more a problem of finding entrepreneurial experts than it is in finding field experts. Imagine you have an idea for building a business that disrupts the Jiffy Lube’s of the world (I got my oil changed today) but you’re located in Montgomery County, KY with a population of 27k. You can likely easily find someone willing to give you ideas about how an auto repair shop works, but very unlikely that you’ll know of someone who, for example, knows how to start a franchising company, or do good market research, or how to find investors, or whatever.
Maybe this budding entrepreneur just shouldn’t be attempting to this. Maybe the budding entrepreneur should just be moving to whatever more urban areas is appropriate for their field. It’s just that I find all this a little unfortunate for all the areas that get drained of the best entrepreneurs.
This comment is a reflection on the state of social networks and not a critique of the OP’s post.
One thing I always see glossed over in articles like this one is: where to find these experts giving advice?
On one hand, of course its this way. The people writing these articles are already experts (or pretending to be!) and are immersed in dense networks of entrepreneurial people and are targeting people with access to these networks. Almost by definition, the people starting the biggest/most-profitable/MOST-EST businesses are largely going to be people with access to these same networks and capital. Much (most? all?) of this seems predicated on physical location.
On the other hand, I’ve started and exited a successful (relative to its peers in its physical area) business and know a person or two like me that are located outside of urban areas where these types of entrepreneurial networks are focused. I know all of us would’ve greatly benefited from a vastly expanded network of experts. And, unfortunately, our networks in more rural areas of the US are much better than what is available in large swathes of the world.
If this is like, established fact or something...I did not know this, and I understand why the hypothetical person was also unaware of this.
As Viliam says, it’s something I’ve heard constantly throughout my life. However, the hypothetical person not having heard of it relates to the points I’m trying to make. I’m saying that rather than telling them to focus on something other than performance, telling them how to better measure themselves might be the better course.
But since I don’t expect to see an RCT anytime soon
To be clear, this is exactly why I tried to couch all my language in this thread in “might”, “I think”, and other terms to indicate that not only am I not sure, but I’m not sure how anyone can be sure about this subject.
When I say to the OP, “I’m also not sure how much weight to give your personal experiences in this area.”, I think I’m saying the same thing you’re saying. I’m not trying to say in a roundabout way that I don’t believe the experiences of the OP. I’m saying my literal state of mind. I also want the OP to post posts like this one for the same reasons you describe.
What you say is true, but it’s a reduction of the problem to be less bad by applying weaker optimization pressure rather than an actual elimination of the problem. Weak Goodharting is still Goodharting and it will still, eventually, subtly screw you up.
I think all self improvement is subject to Goodharting, even the type you recommend.
The best things available to us to do about that:
Be nimble and self-aware. Adjust your processes to notice when you’re harming yourself.
Be thoughtful in how you measure success.
I do not think this is actually a contradiction to your post, but, at least for me, it seems like a more actionable framing of the issue.
The following comment isn’t exactly a criticism. It’s more just exploring the idea.
I still struggle to really get on board with the advice you offer here while at the same time thinking that the general idea has a lot of merit. I think that both making yourself broadly better and focusing on narrow areas is maybe the best approach.
Take your illustrative story. I’d say the problem here is not that the person is trying to focus on the narrow area of increasing productivity. It’s that they picked a bad metric and a bad way of continual measuring themselves against the metric. The story just kind of glosses over what I would say is the most important part!
I’d say that 65%-75% of the problem this person has is that they apparently didn’t seriously think about this stuff before hand and pre-commit to a good strategy for measurement.
The person who looks and says “I only wrote 100 words last hour?!??!” kind of reminds me of the investor checking their stock prices every day.
For this person three months or six months or a year might be a better time frame for checking how they’re doing. Regardless, the main point I want to make is that how well this person would be able to improve themselves in this area while maintaining their well being is largely dependent upon making good decisions on this very important question.
On the other hand, making good decisions about this is also part of your advice...aka, keeping broad self-improvement in mind.
FWIW, I’ve lived most of my adult life (I’m in my mid 40s) basically with this sort of mindset...focusing on specific areas of self-improvement but also being well aware of how it might affect my broad well-being and taking that into account. I think everyone who knows me would tell you I’m a well-adjusted, friendly, and happy person.
That being said, I feel like that a lot of that is inherent in my personality so I’m not sure how much weight to give my personal experience.
Also, I wanted to say that I know many people who really came into their own in their mid-to-late thirties. I think a lot of people just start getting their life into order by that time, so I’m also not sure how much weight to give your personal experiences in this area.
I dabble in getting more fit from time to time, and bodyweight work always seems to call to me, but...
*Why* does Wade think lifting weights are bad and calisthenics are good? It seems like he just asserts that as the case and then goes on to demonstrate the benefits of calisthenics.
(Forgive me if this was covered more than I thought...I read this over two separate days, but I don’t recall much discussion of this.)
If we publish a new article, as my boss wanted, I fear some people will still find the first paper and not the second one, will keep quoting it, and, god forbid, use that published method.
Can you clarify this for me? Why would a new article make it more likely that people would find the first paper compared to the current situation wherein the only paper they could find is the first paper?
I believe I keep my identity small “naturally”. The idea of belonging to an identity kind of gives me an icky feeling. I’m not attracted to the idea of being part of an identity or describing myself as being part of an identity. I do not express myself as being a rationalist or any other sort of group you could plausibly describe as being part of my identity.
This is not to say that I don’t do rationalist things. I do not find the concept of an identity useful in describing or motivating the actions I take.
Keeping my identity small is more just a side effect of other processes. I do not have the value “keep your identity small”. Keeping my identity small just falls out of other processes. However, in the past, I’m sure I’ve mistakenly described the reason I don’t have identity X is “because I want to keep my identity small”. I’m not sure why that is. It seems easier to describe the process that way?
This is all to say that some percentage of people saying they’re doing X to keep their identity small are misconstruing what is happening. I do not know how common this is, but surely it’s not zero percent.
This comment is mostly an aside, so feel free to skip reading if you’re not interested in a digression.
To quote the quote of Huemer:
Similarly, if taxation is theft, then it would probably be wrong to tax people, say, to pay for an art museum.
I enjoyed much of the argument that you quoted, but this struck me.
I think maybe the “would probably be” should have been written “it might be”. I can think of arguments around the benefits to society of everyone getting to enjoy art in an art museum that do not seem to apply to the individual who steals to buy a piece of art for their home.
I haven’t thought them all the way through, but, again, I found the quoted sentence quite incongruous.
I think the idea is that the AI doesn’t say “help me establish a dictatorship”. The AI says “I did this one weird trick and made a million dollars, you should try it too!” but surprise, the weird trick is step 1 of 100 to establish The AI World Order.
I can’t point to the episode(s) or post(s), but I believe both on his blog and on his podcast Conversations with Tyler, Tyler has expressed the idea that we may be currently coming out of the stagnation of stuff in the Real World driven by stuff like SpaceX, CRISPR, mRNA, etc.
69. When you ask people, “What’s your favorite book / movie / band?” and they stumble, ask them instead what book / movie / band they’re currently enjoying most. They’ll almost always have one and be able to talk about it.
I can’t imagine narrowing the dimensions of my preferences in such a way that one single piece of media can become my “favorite” so I’m never sure what to think when someone else seems to have done so.
The downside of getting used to multiple monitors this is that I now find it impossible to get anything done on a laptop. There’s a constant low level background irritation when I find myself confined to one tiny screen.
There’s diminishing returns of course, but I’ve found 3 monitors to be the best for me. One portrait and two landscape.
Possibly, it depends on the individual cop. However, I think the idea is that if you haven’t done anything wrong and you don’t answer any questions you’re in a better position than if you have done something wrong and the chance that you say something that sounds incriminating and/or the cop is not questioning in good faith.
In other words, the consequences of seeming suspicious with no evidence against you are much better for you than the consequences of saying the wrong thing.
By far the most common context in which anyone I know has interacted with the cops is when filing police reports for damaged or stolen property
USA resident here that lives in a more rural-esque area:
I can’t say I know anyone who has talked to the cops to file a report. Every interactions that I can think of between people I know and the cops has been in situations wherein they could incriminate themselves. Traffic stops and the like.
I’d recommend AutoIT instead of AHK. Not that AutoIT is a great language, but it’s a better language than AHK, using more standard language constructs.
I agree with you.
However, in case my last comment wasn’t clear on the subject: I do not think anger is required to punch the bully. I’m not sure anger is required in any circumstance and I’m sure anger has negative consequences no matter the reason for it.