jmh

Karma: 1,498

jmh Feb 21, 2025, 2:46 PM
6 points
0
on: The case for the death penalty
I’m a bit conflicted on the subject of death penalty. I do agree with the view some solution is needed for incorrigible cases where you just don’t want that person out in general society. But I honestly don’t know if killing them versus imprisoning them for life is more or less humane. In terms of steelmanning the case I think one might explore this avenue. Which is the cruelest punishment?
But I would also say one needs to consider alternatives to either prison or death. Historically it was not unheard of to exile criminals to near impossible to escape locations—Australia possibly being a best example.

jmh Feb 19, 2025, 6:13 PM
2 points
0
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Open Thread Winter 2024/2025
In some ways I think one can make that claim but in an important ways, to me, numbers don’t really matter. In both you still see the role of government as an actor, doing things, rather than an institutional form that enables people to do things. I think the US Constitution is a good example of that type of thinking. It defines the powers the government is suppose to have, limiting what actions it can and cannot take.
I’m wondering what scope might exist for removing government (and the bureaucracy that performs the work/actions) from our social and political worlds while still allowing the public goods (non-economic term use here) to still be produced and enjoyed by those needing/wanting such outputs. Ideally that would be achieved without as much forced-carrying (the flip of free-riding) from those uninterested or uninterested at the cost of producing them.
Markets seem to do a reasonable job of finding interior solutions that are not easily gamed or controlled by some agenda setter. Active government I think does that more poorly and by design will have an agenda setter in control of any mediating and coordinating processes for dealing with the competing interest/wants/needs. These efforts then invariable become political an politicized—an as being demonstrated widely in today’s world, as source of a lot of internal (be it global, regional/associative or domestic) strife leading to conflict.

jmh Feb 19, 2025, 5:36 PM
2 points
0
on: Open Thread Winter 2024/2025
Did the Ask Question type post go away? I don’t see it any more. So I will ask here since it certainly is not worthy of a post (I have no good input or thoughts or even approaches to make some sense of it). Somewhat prompting the question was the report today about MS just revealing it’s first quantum chip, and the recent news about Google’s advancement in its quantum program (a month or two back).
Two branches of technology have been seen as game, or at least potential game changers: AI/AGI and quantum computing. The former often a topic here and certainly worth calling “mainstream” technology at this point. Quantum computing has been percolating just under the surface for quite a while as well. There have been a couple of recent announcements related to quantum chips/computing suggesting progress is being made.
I’m wondering if anyone has thought about the intersection between these two areas of development. Is a blending of quantum computing and AI a really scary combination for those with relatively high p(doom) views of existing AGI trajectories? Does quantum computing, in the hands of humans perhaps level the playing field for human v. AGI? Does quantum computing offer any potential gains in alignment or corrigibility?
I realize that current state quantum computing is not really in the game now, and I’m not sure if those working in that area have any overlap with those working in the AI fields. But from the outside, like my perspective is, the two would seem to offer large complementarities—for both good and bad I suppose, like most technologies.

jmh Feb 17, 2025, 11:01 PM
4 points
0
in reply to: niplav’s comment on: Open Thread Winter 2024/2025
Thanks. It was an interesting view. Certainly taking advantage of modern technologies and, taken at face value, seem to have resulted in some positive results. Has me thinking of making a visit just to talk with some of the people to see get some first hand accounts and views just how much that is changing the views and “experience” of government (meaning people experience as they live under a government).
I particularly liked the idea of government kind of fading into the background and being generally invisible. I think in many ways people see markets in that way pretty much too—when running to the store to pick up some milk or a loaf of bread or whatnot, who really gives much though to the whole supply chain aspect of whatever they were getting actually being there.

jmh Feb 16, 2025, 10:35 PM
6 points
1
on: Open Thread Winter 2024/2025
Does anyone here ever think to themselves, or out loud, “Here I am in the 21st Century. Sure, all the old scifi stories told me I’d have a shiny flying car but I’m really more interested in where my 21st Century government is?”
For me that is premised on the view that pretty much all existing governments are based on theory and structures that date at least back to the 18th Century in the West. The East might say they “modernized” a bit with the move from dynasties (China, Korea, Japan) to democratic forms but when I look at the way those governments and polities actually work seems more like a wrapper around the prior dynastic structures.
But I also find it challenging to think just what might be the differentiating change that would distinguish a “21st Century” government from existing ones. The best I’ve come up with is that I don’t see it as some type of privatization divestiture of existing government activities (even though I do think some should be) but more of a shift from government being the acting agent it is now and more like a markets in terms of mediating and coordinating individual and group actions via mechanisms other than voting for representation or direct voting on actions.

jmh Feb 16, 2025, 10:20 PM
4 points
1
on: Some articles in “International Security” that I enjoyed
With regards to thinking about what comes next, you might find these two links, if you didn’t already come across them, of some interest.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/atlantic-council-strategy-paper-series/three-worlds-in-2035/ hypothesizes 3 global futures for 2035.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/atlantic-council-strategy-paper-series/welcome-to-2035/ offers results from a survey about various outcomes of states that might obtain in (by???) 2035. I didn’t find much surprising here but some of the questions I had not given thought to before so hardly had a point of view on them.

jmh Jan 24, 2025, 10:26 PM
5 points
0
on: Mechanisms too simple for humans to design
I could be way off on this, but I cannot help but core here is less about complexity than it is about efficiency. The most efficient processes do all appear to be a bit simpler than they probably are. It’s a bit like watching an every talented craftsman working and thinking “The looks easy.” Then when you try you find out it was much more difficult and complicated than it appeared. The craftsman’s efficiency in action (ability to handle/deal with the underlying complexity) masked the truth a bit.

jmh Jan 20, 2025, 5:46 PM
3 points
0
on: Don’t ignore bad vibes you get from people
I’ve had similar experiences where my intuition tells me to be cautious but I could not say why. When I’ve ignored those intuitions I’ve generally paid a price. So now I do give them consideration.
In such situations it is probably good to take some time to sit back and try to identify some of the things that triggered the response. We are very good at pattern matching but also really good at filtering. Could be that intuitions like “getting bad vibes” is all about the interaction of the two.
But that is a pretty difficult task, we’re asking our self to go back and review all the details we ignored and filtered. But I suspect it is a very good thing to try doing.

jmh Jan 17, 2025, 4:54 PM
5 points
1
in reply to: johnswentworth’s comment on: What Is The Alignment Problem?
The desires-values schema reminds me of Hirshmann’s The Passions and the Interests and the problem he (IIRC) sees Machiavelli dealing with. Machiavelli is advising kings who he sees as more driven by their passions but to be successful need to be driven more by their interests.
Anyone in the alignment space take a look at Machiavelli in the light of how to get some thing that is more powerful (king versus the advisor) better aligned? Probably need to stretch things a bit to see that type of alignment as being aligned with the general welfare of the kingdom but seems like he was dealing with a similar problem when looked at from certain angles.

jmh Jan 10, 2025, 3:13 PM
3 points
0
in reply to: gw’s comment on: Subskills of “Listening to Wisdom”
I like the point about the need for some type of external competitive measure but as you say, they might not be a MMA gym where you need one.
Shifting the metaphor, I think your observation of the sucker punch fits well with the insight that for those with only a hammer, all problems look like nails. The gym would be someone with a screwdriver or riveter as well as the hammer. But even lacking the external check, we should always ask ourselves “Is this really a nail?” I might only have a hammer but if this isn’t a nail while the results might be better than nothing (maybe?) I’m not likely to achieve the best that could be done some other way. And,of course, watching just what happens went the other hammer-only people solve the problem and compare results to those when we know the problem is a nail we might learn something from their mistakes.

jmh Jan 2, 2025, 5:47 PM
4 points
2
in reply to: Ben Pace’s comment on: Ben Pace’s Shortform Feed
I agree with the view that punishment is not really a great deterrent as many crimes are not committed from a calculated cost-benefit perspective. I do think we need to apply that type of thinking towards what we might do with that insight/fact of things.
On that point, would like to see more on your claim that we would get better bang for the buck as it were from more investment in preventing crimes. In this regard I’m thinking about the contrast between western legal views and places like China as well as the estimates on the marginal pecuniary costs of prevention to the marginal pecuniary savings from reduced punishment. Clearly two (among many) difference margins along which trade-offs will need to be made.
Another aspect that seems worth exploring (and I’m sure it has been but not sure where the literature stands on the question) is how, at least in my understanding of USA criminal law, victims of crimes are not often compensated (white collar, fraud, financial crimes are something of an exception) but the victims, as a part of society, are then paying costs to punish the criminal. Full prevention is not a reasonable assumption (not sure what level is a reasonable assumption) but we might find a better solution even at the current rate of prevention if more of those harmed by crimes were actually compensated for the harms rather than just imposing the punishment of the criminal actor. A primary reason for preventing the event of a crime is the prevention of the harm. But if the harm can be largely mitigated after the fact there is a degree of equivalent between it never having occurred and it’s compensation (perhaps here we might think of law and punishment as a type of insurance).
I also think there is something to look at in terms of prevention of incidence of crimes due to incarceration—a type of exile. There might be scope for approaches there that maintain that type of prevention for repeat offenders (those demonstrating a propensity for some bad behavior for whatever reason) that may be possible at a lower cost than prison incarceration. And what might the marginal gain in prevention be related to the cost of the solution. This is a somewhat different approach than the ex anti prevention approach applied to the general society but may be nearly as effective but substantially lower cost.

jmh Jan 2, 2025, 5:00 PM
5 points
3
in reply to: CstineSublime’s comment on: ejenner’s Shortform
Agree. There is that old saying about even fools learning from their own mistakes but wise men learning from the mistakes of others. But if everyone is trying to hide their mistakes, that might limit how much learning the wise can do.
I had not really thought about this before, but after seeing your comment the question struck me if social/cultural norms about social status and “loosing face” don’t impact scientific advancement.

jmh Dec 24, 2024, 3:16 AM
2 points
0
on: When Is Insurance Worth It?
Nice write up and putting some light on something I think I have intuitively been doing but not quite realizing it. Particularly the impact on growth of wealth.
I was thinking that a big challenge for a lot of people is the estimated distribution—which is likely why so many non-technical rationales are given by many people. Trying to assess that is hard and requires a lot of information about a lot of things—something the insurance companies can do (as suggested by another comment) but probably overwhelms most people who buy insurance.
With that thought, I was wondering if anyone has thought of shifting the equations a bit. Rather than working up some estimate of the probability space, why not put an equation together that you might be able to churn out some probability distributions given W, P, d_i and c_i. for the break-even case. I think most people would be able to digest that, event x_i has implied probability p_i, event x_j has implied probability p_j. Then the person can think if those probabilities actually make sense to them and their situation.
Clearly, it could not be an exhaustive listing of events but I would think a table of three or four of the main events that carry the greatest losses would be a good starting point for most people.

jmh Dec 18, 2024, 3:09 PM
2 points
0
on: Open Thread Fall 2024
What is the price of the past? Kind of leading question but I’ve found myself wondering at times about the old saying about those who don’t know the past are doom to repeat it.
It’s not that I don’t think there is a good point to that view. However, when I look at the world around me I often see something that is vastly different from that view. I’ve come to summarize that as those who cannot let go of the past will never escape it. The implication is that not only those “clingy” people but also those around them will continue living whatever past it is they are attached to. As this is generally bad events of the past that means we get stuck living with these bad outcomes in the world.
So while keeping that knowledge of the past in mind may prevent repeating it, that might be accomplished by never actually having learned from or moved past the history. I’m unsure which is worse.

jmh Dec 17, 2024, 2:06 PM
2 points
0
in reply to: AnthonyC’s comment on: Why comparative advantage does not help horses
Yes, all those conjectures are possible as we don’t yet know what the reality will be—it is currently all conjecture.
The counter argument to yours I think is just what opportunities is the AI giving up to do whatever humans might be left to do? What is the marginal value of all the things this ASI might be able to be doing that we cannot yet even conceive of?
I think the suggestion of a negative value is just out of scope here as it doesn’t fit into theory of comparative advantage. That was kind of the point of the OP. It is fine to say comparative advantage will not apply but we lack any proof of that and have plenty of examples where it actually does hold even when there is a clear absolute advantage for one side. Trying to reject the proposition by assuming it away seems a weak argument.

jmh Dec 16, 2024, 4:05 PM
2 points
0
in reply to: AnthonyC’s comment on: Why comparative advantage does not help horses
I’m not sure that is the correct take in the context of Comparative Advantage.
It would not matter if the SI could produce more than humans in a direct comparison but what the opportunity cost for the SI might be. If the ASI is shifting efforts that would have produced more value to it than it gets from the $77 sunlight output AND that delta in value is greater than the lower productivity of the humans then the trade makes sense to the ASI.
Seems to me the questions here are about resource constraints and whether or not an ASI does or does not need to confront them in a meaningful way.

jmh Nov 30, 2024, 12:54 AM
2 points
0
in reply to: denkenberger’s comment on: Repeal the Jones Act of 1920
You’re touching on one of the questions that occurred to me. What do the current and post-Jones transportation flows look like? While I agree that the law must shift some from shipping to truck, rail or pipeline I’m not sure I would expect massive changes here. Do you have some data on that point?

jmh Nov 30, 2024, 12:28 AM
4 points
0
in reply to: Gordon Seidoh Worley’s comment on: Information vs Assurance
I think one clear aspect of the stories here, yours and John’s, relates to what I’ll call asymmetric information flows. Basically, the times at which the information, that no one is trying to keep secret, become known to the relevant parties.
Of course understanding what a good update frequency is for various situations should be is a tricky thing itself.

jmh Nov 25, 2024, 12:18 AM
4 points
0
in reply to: abramdemski’s comment on: Hell is wasted on the evil
If I’m reading this correctly, then generally we’re seeing a rather flat payoff curve over most “do good opportunities” and the rare max should stand out like a sore thumb when taking a good look. So those really should be things do-gooders will jump on quickly. (Note, that doesn’t mean they are done quickly or that additional assistance is not important.)
While not as obvious, it probably also means that a lot of more mundane opportunities are getting ignored. That comes from an insight offered in one of my classes from years back asking why so much clumping (think fad type stuff here) exists when the marginal utility of the consumed good is pretty much equal to all the other goods that could have been consumer. In other words, when the opportunity cost is zero why is everyone doing the same thing?
I suspect we could see something like that in the “do good” space. Therefore, taking the path not followed could be a very good thing.

jmh Nov 24, 2024, 5:28 AM
2 points
0
on: Neutrality
One point I’m not sure about with the idea of neutrality is neutrality of process or of outcome. Or would that distinction not matter to your interests here?