If Wisconsin is trading cheese with Ohio, and then Michigan becomes much better at producing cheese, this can harm the economy of Wisconsin. It should not be possible for Wisconsin to be harmed by trading with Michigan unless something weird is going on.
Was “Wisconsin” supposed to be “Ohio” in the second sentence? Or are you contrasting between Wisconsin trading with Ohio and Wisconsin trading with Michigan?
Not currently.
This is silly
Perhaps
then you ought to focus predominantly on something else
This does not seem inconsistent with the post. (Contributing $1 per day towards something hardly seems to preclude focusing predominantly on other things.) Do you disagree with that?
It seems that classifiers trained on adversarial examples may be finding (more) conservative concept boundaries:
We also found that the weights of the learned model changed significantly, with the weights of the adversarially trained model being significantly more localized and interpretable
Benquo Given your analysis, I’m surprised by your vote of 50%. You took what was given as a conservative estimate, added in additional moderating factors, and still got a 10x margin of safety. Is this just because of a strong prior towards discounting cost effectiveness estimates?
How much would one have to donate for you to be 90% sure that it would offset the cost of eating meat?
For counterpoint, see: http://effective-altruism.com/ea/ry/ethical_offsetting_is_antithetical_to_ea/.
For reference, Lewis Bollard estimates that recent corporate cage-free campaigns “will spare about 250 hens a year of cage confinement per dollar spent.”
So I suppose I should attempt a real reply.
I think:
information hazards should be avoided
people should be allowed to develop opinions in private so that they can think freely
there’s tremendous value in public discussions (where ideas can be evaluated by and/or spread to many people)
But I do think it is a good question.
A probability doesn’t seem like the right way to measure this.
Note that PredictIt currently thinks there’s a 7% chance Trump will be impeached within the first 100 days.
That seems high to me for the first 100 days, since Republicans control both the house and the Senate. However, things could change at the midterm elections in 2018.
Overall I’m going with a 1 in 6 chance during the first term.
Fair to paraphrase as: donor-as-silent-partner?
Current thinking is that we should allow claims to be edited, but that past users’ votes appear grayed out (so it’s clear that they voted on a previous version of the claim). As of today, this hasn’t been implemented yet.
The question of tradeoffs between X and Y and winners’ curses reminds me of Bostrom’s paper, The Unilateralist’s Curse.
From the abstract:
In some situations a number of agents each have the ability to undertake an initiative that would have significant effects on the others. Suppose that each of these agents is purely motivated by an altruistic concern for the common good. We show that if each agent acts on her own personal judgment as to whether the initiative should be undertaken, then the initiative will move forward more often than is optimal. We suggest that this phenomenon, which we call the unilateralist’s curse, arises in many contexts, including some that are important for public policy. To lift the curse, we propose a principle of conformity, which would discourage unilateralist action. We consider three different models for how this principle could be implemented, and respond to some objections that could be raised against it.
Is the idea that a single organization should pursue X or Y and not worry about the fact that any given donors will value both X and Y to varying degrees?
(If so I might have called this organization-independence, or single-focus.)
I’m not sure what you mean about an exchange rate. Isn’t a Pareto improvement something that makes everyone better off (or rather: someone better off and no one worse off)?
This is one of the claims that Benquo made in his post, so I think we should leave the wording as is, unless he wants to change it.
(I’ve added a note explaining where the claim comes from.)
I agree that there are some x-risks (like global warming) that are helped by a colony, but most aren’t.
Alexei What are some of the ones (besides AI x-risk) that you think are not?
Nm, the longer explanation later in the page answered my question.