FlorianH

Karma: 680

FlorianH 5 Jun 2026 15:07 UTC
1 point
0
on: Alienable (not Inalienable) Right to Buy
Update: Glad to see the post Voluntary Paternalism (original here) - reinventing this wheel one could say, but in particular providing an imho ideal name for what I propose!

FlorianH 5 Jun 2026 15:04 UTC
2 points
0
on: Voluntary Paternalism
I’ve proposed THIS here: Alienable (not Inalienable) Right to Buy!
Thanks to your post I now have a better name for it! I love “Voluntary Paternalism”!
Every sentence you write gets from me 💯💯💯.
We should feel sad that our posts don’t get more upvotes—as it’s exactly an important idea!
It addresses not only inividual well-being but also democratic buy-in to our market system that evilly over-tempts us with stuff we cannot well enough resist to and that commoners—at least superficially—often hate, and that makes people cynical about economy and society and, in the democratic cases, democracy, I’d wager from anecdotal evidences.
You might btw find interesting another post I’ve written that touches upon: Why paternalism anyway, even the non-voluntary one. I start with a weird-seeming trip re what ‘self’ actually is when we really are skeptical observers rather than naive believers in what we feel, but you can even disregard that a bit, but it ends in an argument as to why the fact that there’s simply no reason to treat “you” now and “you” in 30 years as a fully integrated “single entity” in a most fundamental way; if you’re myopic in your view and not careful for the future, there’s no reason to keep the you-in-30-years unabatedly hostage by your current you; we must intervene. Your own fully pragmatic ‘it’s simply better to intervene’ can suffice, fwiw here that extended (implied) argument pro paternalism: Relativity Theory for What the Future ‘You’ Is and Isn’t

(would be keen to read also your potential agreement or disagremeents).
I think btw while even our LW co-smarties seem to underappreciate the relevance of the thing—call me biased—tech will of course help us solve it at least partly. The bank account that let’s you easily pre-program what you can and cannot spend on is surely just around the corner, tbc.

FlorianH 5 Jun 2026 12:31 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: TerriLeaf’s comment on: Rent from oil: a goldmine
been hearing about PV and wind “exploding” for over a decade now, that makes me skeptical. If it happens I’ll be pleasantly surprised.
I work in modelling energy markets since 10-20y and yes we ‘saw it explode’ since 1-2 decades indeed; it has been rapid exponential growth, and now its a few % of global power (more and more countries going rapidly towards high double-digit %age), and if nothing fundamentally changes, soon a few and then many % of global energy, I see nothing to stop this. My honest strong gut feeling (FWIW!!) is: “OP is a bit late to the trash renewables (RES) party” (again, despite the still slightly humbling graph). 20y ago it started with claims as to how it’d be a physical tautology that RES can’t make a serious dent ever. ‘We’d have to cover this high double-digit share of all agri surface and have wind turbines EVERYwhere’ or things like that. Then they were unaffordable. Then we cannot store them. BUT TODAY, REALLY: really cheap, not so storable anymore, IOT naturally enables a ton of flexibilities; we’re super dumb societally and don’t dare strong dynamic pricing but with that we’d adjust on a whim I’m sure—though this cannot be super well studied without having (i) social scale (ii) long-ish term daring attempts to expose firms, industries, households to dynamic prices. And I don’t have the impression the expansion is just from strong subsidies or something; often it simply seems like a very natural option to go for. Then again, your graph surprised me more than it should so maybe I’m too much in the weeds, in the individual numbers to see part of the big pic.
re tax wedge: The optimal tax vis-a-vis pollution is not 0 but the level that coresponds to the marginal pollution cost, no matter whether some emissions will eventually be CCS-ed or not. There’s anyway no ‘distortion’ as the basic distortion you fear from taxing is ‘qty reduction’ but that’s exactly what’s optimal in the face of a negative externality. Bread shouldn’t cost 0 in the optimum only because somebody (in this case the baker himself but that’s more accidental in terms of discussing optimal prize) bears a negativity (his effort); carbon emissions exactly equally simply shouldn’t cost 0 as broad society bears a negativity. You want taxes as “fair” but I see nothing unfair here.
Btw, I’m fully agreeing we should exactly skim resource extraction rents in a way you describe, not contesting at all. (and interestingly it would also be a very natural & undistortive way to deal with AI creating a lot - a lot from our earth as inputs and the inputs it should pay for so we have lots of public money and thus random people can naturally own much of the eventual produce, even if the AI owners as intermediaries may keep a competitive, incentivizing margin remunerating their contribution)

FlorianH 4 Jun 2026 23:39 UTC
6 points
0
on: Rent from oil: a goldmine
Love the challenge and I think good points in order to not forget the reality, but I think it’s still relveant that:
- 60$/tCO2 sequestered feels a bit cherrypicked; significantly too low. Cheap biological sequestration with strong durability questions about. Sequestering fossil fuel CO2 to underground often significantly more expensive, and for good or for bad is mostly the main removal route considered afaik; I’ve worked on financial estimates for projects and I think we were usually significantly above 100€/tCO2. The EU has carbon tax above 60$/tCO2 but I don’t think we’re on track to getting much of it w/o special subsidies for it (all projects I’ve so far seen were for special support funds)
  - Plus, there’s topic of ‘depletion’ of good reservoirs for e.g. liquefied CO2 which is still a mainstay of CCS
- Yes energy mix pic so far doesn’t look great, and I admit upon looking it up to my surprise your graph is one with the substitution method that shows the proportions even in a relatively renewables-favorable way. Oopsie. Still, PV deployment rate is massively exploding now and it seems like it’s not everywhere only because of subsidies. I hear often about it being cheapest scalable source in many locations. Look at record breaking competitive auction prices. Yes, intermittency, but nowadays even with batteries getting seriously cheap. Add in EVs as natural batteries. Plus, how easily we can flexibilize demand if need be—if we get used to it on a societal level.
- More generally, I think your ‘rent’ topic is mostly overcomplicating the narrative. We want energy, that much we know. We can see whether it’s cheaper to build renewable energy or fossil+carbon removal and the one that is cheaper, indeed, “wins” the economic-sensemaking-competition, as simple as that—on first order approximation (massive simplification but not more than in your narrative), and if we’re assuming all elements considered would be available at any required scale.
- I’m not alone to want to live in a city with EVs just because of local pollution & noise & accumulating blackness and because I then myself can have a car without having too much annoying maintenance. Just to say: Gosh, how dirty dirty fuel is while electrification has nice side benefits—I think in partiuclar in transport sector, which you emphasize: electrification as +- inevitable part of the renewables transition is a super large obvious extra benefit along quite a few dimensions. I personally believe once we get rid of cars in our cities we’ll look back like we do in my country to the time where we had cigarettes in all trains and bars: it was not nice.
- You cite Norway, and you may live in the US, but mind: for large parts of the world continuing with fossil fuels as main energy sources means maintaining an uncanny dependence from despots and what have you.
Looking fwd to seeing where it goes in 20 years—well, that’s today of course a bit a weird thing to say, and reminds me yes expontential data centres may also make it more challenging to go only renewables. Damn, yet another point for you :).

FlorianH 25 May 2026 20:57 UTC
1 point
0
on: Relativity Theory for What the Future ‘You’ Is and Isn’t
Update: Just found https://community.samharris.org/c/general/self-is-an-illusion-and-this-will-make-you-feel-it proposing roughly the same argumentation and same conclusions—and leading you nicely up to it with a few small thought experiments. Not really surprised somebody else also came up with it independently: It really is such an obvious point even if it is all set up for it to feel totally impossible.

FlorianH 24 May 2026 9:41 UTC
1 point
0
on: Veganism is Virtuous, not Obligatory
My comment is slightly harsh-toned, because the concept of moral “obligation” tends to rub me slightly the wrong way. Either I appeal to your kindness in the hope you’ll WANT to be good, or I have the WHIP to materially impose something on you—philosophical “obligation” in the abstract sense in between feels often unhelpful, which strikes me as part of the issue in OP.
An original sin is your shallow definition of obligation. “A thing one must (or must not) do” is too thin, the crucial question is who obliges whom if there is a ‘must’, and leaving this open makes the whole argument nearly a question of definition. Different sources of obligation—a community’s claim, one’s own commitments, institutions—would give different verdicts on exactly the cases your argument leans on.
Key point re core logic though: Your key point is about parity, and it’s intuitively super appealing but imho as bottom line actually misguided; too theoretical and ignoring randomness: by your own numbers, practices we accept to kill animals in the same ballpark as meat-eating (driving: 75 vertebrates per lifetime; windowed houses: hundred of birds; power lines another handful), so by parity meat should be fine too, and this may hold esp. when using relative personal benefit/overall harm type ratios. But parity needs those other practices to actually be ‘permissible’ (using similar type of language as the philosophical ‘obligation’), not just currently accepted. In a super brutal and slavery-tolerant society, “don’t hit your wife slightly” wouldn’t stop being an obligation just because much worse usually goes unchecked—doesn’t pass my smell test. Moral progress is uneven and a bit random across domains, our psychology individual and collective is patchy about what it tolerates. Maybe driving and electricity are domains we’re just still backwards on, not proof the practice is fine. In sum, a ton of evil things being seen as ‘permissible’, would not mean ‘that other less evil thing’ should ‘thus also’ be permissible; let’s not hold us back on moral progress if in some domain we really manage to socially somehow—yes weirdly—we happened to be able to make it.
In sum: lacking operational definition of “obligation,” and a relevant insight about uneven moral demands imho overinterpreted due to ignoring, more interestingly, a crucial point about flexibility and randomness of domain-specific (or even detailed question-specific) moral progress.
Note: My comment should not be misinterpreted as to saying anything as to whether or not society ought to impose veganism or higher farm animal welfare standards; I agree with you simply that animal welfare is a super important topic, and my personal opinion is that regulating morally relevant things is very much the domain of democratic decision making, but it’s of course a super complex topic tooo.

FlorianH 20 May 2026 9:41 UTC
4 points
0
on: If AI is normal technology, history is not reassuring.
Thanks, great warning that puts into perspective some of the techno-optimism often dominating the discussion. Less necessarily changing the assessment of those anyway looking at the risk at a more granular level, but maybe ideal rebuttal of those claims that take the shortcut of ‘tech always been good, so I need not listen further’.
One counter to your, say, it’s often been bad at least initially so a superficial prior could rather be ‘bad at least temporarily than simple-and-always good’, could be a parallel to what we’d say about how today’s society & institutions can prevent resource curse: ‘yes, in less developed societies oil diamonds what have you ends terrible for its population (in fact in partly quite similar ways to bunch of things you point out: hierarchical dominance, exploitation/inequality, …), BUT, now with our modern developed & strong institutions, we can handle it better’. ‘We’re now Norway, not a guerilla war state, when we discover the oil’ → here being ‘we now have strong democratic decision making to prevent the bad from AI/ASI and we’ll prevent many otherwise natural mistakes we’d have made centuries ago’.
The devil lies in the details as to which degree these modern institutions can or cannot really help us here. My confidence is weak that our institutions truly will improve the picture, and I remain pessimistic, but I find it a worthy complication for refinement of your argument.

FlorianH 19 May 2026 18:10 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Sunny from QAD’s comment on: Evan Rysdam’s Shortform
I love economics (I’m an engineer and accidentally stumbled into it and now am PhD econ since 15 y or so and lecturer) and much of me believes DI quote exactly hits the nail. Sometimes, say 20% of me*, thinks that even reasonably advanced economics doesn’t help not so smart people really be smart. Still, I think the statement survives.
PM me if you’re interested in me sharing some materials personally with you! I’m also happy to have brief chats on things if useful.
Smartness + econ really is king.
One thing I can say upfront: I’m convinced on in LW or EA circles I have the impression to often find smarter quasi-economics analysis than among economists opinions/statements, so it’s all a bit a funny world with econ (a rant e.g. here).
*My exact literal and ungrammatical statement makes little sense but I reckon you see how I mean it.

FlorianH 19 May 2026 17:56 UTC
1 point
−7
in reply to: lc’s comment on: lc’s Shortform
Yes. But OBAA might also somewhat counterintuitively increase public trust instead. A bit like May labor day protest might appease people and make them accept capitalism more in daily live (and—maybe bit more remotely related—a bit like shallow and effectless ‘green product’ options and publicities might appease the average consumer giving him false warm comfort that environmental concerns are, after all, taken care of one way or other). I believe that’s not just a theoretical possibility but quite plausible.

FlorianH 17 May 2026 20:46 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Angela Richardson’s comment on: Who Got Breasts First and How We Got Them
Women who have reproduced recently are less likely to have passed the menopause.
I guess that was exactly part of what I meant.
Other mammals don’t live for decades after the menopause like we do.
Interesting point!! Apparently women really live exceptionally long, while their menopause (and its timing) itself is not unusual at all, and the most prevalent hypothesis is “grandmothering”, which posits what its name suggests, and essentially is, for our purposes, yet another symptom of them (say, our genes, or figuratively thus ‘our children’) desperately wanting us to stick around to care for these slow-up-growing and nerve-and-everything-wrecking offspring. In that sense, indirect extra, tiny support of the idea ‘they want to lure into having sex anytime as a loyalty encouraging devise and preventing us from straying too far’ or something like that. I’m vary if it sounds too simple but it does all seem to make sense (?).

FlorianH 17 May 2026 17:33 UTC
2 points
−1
on: How to Reason about Your Health Issues
I call publication bias on your (as of itself interesting) chain example.
The root cause of a health issue is always something outside the body. (In the case of genetic disorders, the root cause is your parents giving you bad genes, and your parents are outside your body.) Our universe is material, and operates on cause and effect.
If you really want, root cause of everything is Big Bang (or whatever modern physics suggests).
But your own example defeats the implicit claim that this root is what matters. You know most gene annoyances cannot be removed by (i) post-natally prevent your parents to give you the genes you got nor even by (ii) simply changing your genes—with current SOTA medicine.
So it’s all a bit overselling the argument in your article even if the bare thought that one shouldn’t overlook 2nd and 3rd and so underlying chain elements may of course often be a good idea and too often overlooked. The way you present it here seems more suitable for a superficial esotherism book than a soberly argued for rationalist case imho.

Falling for the statistical parrot

FlorianH17 May 2026 1:02 UTC

5 points

0 comments2 min readLW link

FlorianH 13 May 2026 22:23 UTC
1 point
−2
on: Vibe Excel and the Future of White-Collar Work
Spot on. Working/building regularly with Excel Financial models I observe: While so far I haven’t used AI much for this specific task at all, using AI for all domains adjacent to it it is totally obvious that AI creating/adjusting/reviewing financial models mostly autonomously will happen ~ tomorrow rather than in a few years.
And you’re even too cautious: it doesn’t even need to be super reliable to have fewer mistakes than the human made ones even for billion dollar projects.

FlorianH 13 May 2026 8:46 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: abstractapplic’s comment on: abstractapplic’s Shortform
Truest truth I read this month 🎉

FlorianH 11 May 2026 22:40 UTC
15 points
4
on: Who Got Breasts First and How We Got Them
A hypothesis imho important but you leave out entirely: permanent breasts as part of a broader signaling complex co-evolved with the other unusual human female trait: cycle-independent sexual receptivity. Humans aren’t unique in extended sexuality (bonobos and some Old World primates have it too), but we’re at the extreme end, and we’re also the species with permanent breasts. The natural a priori thus, imho: selection for cycle-independent male sexual interest favors traits signaling “potentially receptive” outside the fertile window, and permanent breast tissue feels like a strong candidate.
While AnthonyC’s comment would seem to object it indirectly, as pre-permanence breasts would have signaled ‘currently lactating, not fertile’ and thus been a turn-off, this seems to miss: In ancestral high-fertility conditions, most adult women would have been pregnant or lactating most of the time, and you got pregnant while lactating, not only later! Even today, e.g. my mum had 4 children in 4 years. If an ancestral female is lactating for 6 months to 2 years, having big breasts can be mostly a good signal for fertility not the other way round.
I don’t think your timing result is incompatible with this story; it just locates the co-evolution in deep hominin time. ((Actually, if your approach could be extended to genes regulating the cycle and sexual receptivity that could be interesting))

FlorianH 10 May 2026 9:27 UTC
1 point
0
on: Please Be Serious
Besides thinking that in the end most people simply don’t pay attention to this anyway, so it doesn’t matter that much whether and how he appears in live debates:
My hunch is that it’s reasonably okay to appear like that because the one thing modern people are fed up about and skeptical against, is the well thought-through professionalized elite trained to sell the bullshit in the superficially most convincing way. So maybe a person who simply is a bit more casual or cheap-fun seeming in their appearance, might not hurt. It’s an empirical question and I have no proof, of course, but if I had to bet, I’d put a substantial weight on that hypothesis.

FlorianH 9 May 2026 15:30 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: leogao’s comment on: leogao’s Shortform
Fwiw: Reading all comments here (though still w/o working link to hendryck’s article), I’m rather convinced we’re mainly circling around questions of definition.
OP leogao = caring in the actual natural sense
Rest: some special definition that I don’t fully understand but so far doesn’t seem super interesting (to me) and leads to indeed “batshit insane” result when read from natural meaning of “degree of caring” instead of hendrycks seemingly different concept

FlorianH 9 May 2026 15:26 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: leogao’s comment on: leogao’s Shortform
Thx, though I cannot read it (I don’t have X and I don’t want to make an X account).

FlorianH 9 May 2026 8:54 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: leogao’s comment on: leogao’s Shortform
Can you give the link? If what you’re saying is implied by his theory yes it would be wholly insane, but I have hard time believing it

FlorianH 9 May 2026 8:45 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: 152334H’s comment on: 152334H’s Shortform
Ignore if you DO mind sharing/no time writing. Else: I’d be curious to read more about why you say “I’m also psychopathic, under any reasonable definition of the term.”: anything on, say, (i) how you realize this, (ii) how that makes you feel about it, (iii) experience of whichever sort related to it.
[No particular reason I ask, just find it a fascinating topic. And pbly a bit because I think humans in general are quite ‘rather psychpathic’ in many ways anyway, if one thinks about what we find ‘standard’ moral and empathic vs. how we actually behave in so many domains and/or particular situations slightly outside of the usual daytoday life; just a bit the way the series you criticize also flagged it in the first post].

FlorianH

Fal­ling for the statis­ti­cal parrot

Falling for the statistical parrot