Slapstick

Karma: 217

Slapstick 1 Jun 2024 21:49 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Seth Herd’s comment on: How likely is it that AI will torture us until the end of time?
Thanks! No pressure to respond

I don’t understand why you think suffering is primary outside of particular brain/mind wiring. I hope I’m misunderstanding you. That seems wildly unlikely to me, and like a very negative view of the world.

Basically I think within the space of all possible varieties and extents of conscious experience, suffering starts to become less and less Commensurable with positive experience the further you go towards the extremes.

If option (A) is to experience the worst possible suffering for 100 years, prior to experiencing the greatest possible pleasure for N number of years, and option (B) is non existence, I would choose option (B), regardless of the value of N.

It appears to be held by people who have suffered much more than they’ve enjoyed life.

Should this count as evidence against their views? It seems clear to me that if you’re trying to understand the nature of qualitative states, first hand experience with extreme states is an asset.

I have personally experienced prolonged states of consciousness which were far worse than non-existence. Should that not play a part in informing my views? Currently I’m very happy, I fear death, I’ve experienced extraordinary prolonged pleasure states. Would you suggest I’m just not acquainted with levels of wellbeing which would cause me to meaningfully revaluate my view?

I think there’s also a sort of meta issue where people with influence are systematically less acquainted with direct experience of the extremes of suffering. Meaning that discourse and decision making will tend to systematically underweight experiences of suffering as a direct data source.

I agree with your last paragraph.

Slapstick 1 Jun 2024 18:47 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Seth Herd’s comment on: How likely is it that AI will torture us until the end of time?
I appreciate the thoughtful response and that you seem to take the ideas seriously.

That is a fundamental aspect of how experience works now. That’s also a result of evolution wiring us to pay more attention to bad things than good things.

I do think it’s a fundamental aspect of how experience works, independently of how our brains are disposed to thinking about it, however I definitely think it’s possible to prophylactically shield or consciousness against the depths of suffering by modifying the substrate. I can’t tell whether we’re disagreeing or not.

I don’t know exactly how to phrase It, but I think a fundamental aspect of the universe is that as suffering increases in magnitude, it becomes less and less clear that there is (or can be) a commensurate value on the positive side which can negate it(trade off against it, even things out). I don’t think it’s true of the reverse.

Are you making the claim that this view is a faulty conclusion owing to the contingent disposition of my human brain?

Or are you making the claim that the disposition of my human brain can be modified so as to prevent exposure to the depths of suffering?

Slapstick 1 Jun 2024 17:09 UTC
1 point
0
on: How likely is it that AI will torture us until the end of time?

We’re in a Pascal’s mugging situation, but from a negative point of view, where the trade-off is between potential infinite years of suffering and suicide in order to avoid them for sure.

In the past I’ve struggled deeply with this thought process and I have reasoned my way out of that conclusion. It’s not necessarily a more hopeful conclusion but it takes away the idea that I need to make a decision, which I find very comforting.

Ultimately it comes down to the illusory nature of identity.

A super powerful entity would have the power to create bespoke conscious entities for the purpose of inducing suffering.

The suffering of “Future you” is no more or less real than the suffering of future entities in general. The only difference is that your present mind projects a sense of identity and continuity which causes you to believe there’s a difference.

The illusory sense that there is continuity of consciousness and identity is evolutionarily advantageous but it fully loses coherence and relevance in the domain you’re talking about.

I’m happy to go into more detail if that isn’t convincing.

You could think of identity in this case as a special type of sympathetic empathy for a version of yourself in the future which you wouldn’t grant to future entities which aren’t “yourself”. This is just a feeling that present you is feeling, and has no actual meaningful connection to the entity you’d classify as your future self.

Slapstick 1 Jun 2024 16:09 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Seth Herd’s comment on: How likely is it that AI will torture us until the end of time?
Does this assume there is some symmetry between the unimaginably bad outcomes and the unimaginably good outcomes?

It seems very clear to me that the worst outcomes are just so much more negative than the best outcomes are positive. I think that is just a fundamental aspect of how experience works.

Slapstick 24 May 2024 20:43 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: SpectrumDT’s comment on: Are most people deeply confused about “love”, or am I missing a human universal?
Would you be able to specify a scenario in which the general term for love would lead to dysfunction?

I think generally if people want to signal how they feel about someone they’re typically able to do so.

A lot of dysfunction is caused by people being intentionally ambiguous about the extent and quality and conditions of their feelings. In that way people may hide behind the ambiguity of the word love. Communication helps but I’m not sure if the imprecise nature of the word love is a significant barrier to communication.

Slapstick 15 May 2024 4:30 UTC
7 points
0
on: my note system
Have you ever used Obsidian? Sounds similar to the method you’re describing. If so, what do you think of it? Especially with respect to your preferred workflow?

Slapstick 14 May 2024 1:33 UTC
11 points
7
on: Monthly Roundup #18: May 2024
On the lab grown meat section

For those who are instead principled libertarians who genuinely wouldn’t turn this around on a moment’s notice, well, I am sorry that others have ruined this and so many other principled stands.

I am not sure if I understand what is meant by this, but I’m interpreting it to imply that principled libertarians should be against a ban on meat derived from animals.

I think anyone claiming that ought to also provide a justification as to why non-human animals shouldn’t be afforded some basic negative rights within libertarian principles?

To argue that one conscious being should be granted full license to do whatever they want with another conscious being doesn’t really strike me a pro freedom stance.

Unless you have a reason why it’s okay to have an out-group for whom you deny freedoms in order to maximize the freedoms of the in-group? Are libertarian principles just “might makes right” privileging the smallest number of individuals you can get away with?

Slapstick 13 May 2024 17:35 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Unirt’s comment on: Thoughts on seed oil
It’s my understanding that the controversy is mostly manufactured by industries with large financial interests in selling foods with added sodium. They pay for misleading/inaccurate studies to be done in order to introduce uncertainty and doubt. Whereas it’s my understanding there is a near consensus towards low sodium amongst scientists without direct/indirect industry ties.

I do think there are probably some cases where increasing salt beyond natural levels can be the healthier thing to do given specific health concerns.

Slapstick 13 May 2024 15:55 UTC
4 points
0
in reply to: noggin-scratcher’s comment on: Benefitial habits/personal rules with very minimal tradeoffs?
That one sounds good!

It wouldn’t work for me personally because I have a pathological relationship with refined sugar so the only equilibrium which works for me is cutting it out entirely (which has been successful and rewarding though initially very difficult).

Thanks!

Slapstick 13 May 2024 15:41 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: mad’s comment on: Benefitial habits/personal rules with very minimal tradeoffs?
Oh that’s a good one! I mostly follow that one already although I do find value in some unsweetened teas and smoothies. I find personally that the immediate trade-offs to consuming alcohol are enough to ensure I only really drink when it’s actually aligned with my interests.

Although I do have a rule for alcohol which is “don’t consume any alcohol unless people who you’re currently being social with are already drinking,” I’m not sure exactly how much that rule has helped me because I’ve followed it all my life and I don’t really like alcohol that much, but maybe that’s partially because of the rule.

But yes I think the rule you gave is a really good one, especially when it comes to things like refined sugar. A sugar craving could be satisfied in other ways, so there’s relatively small trade-offs in that sense, whereas it’s very beneficial not to drink refined calories because it’s so easy to consume so much that way while not bringing in any significant nutrition alongside it.

Thanks!

[Question] Benefitial habits/personal rules with very minimal tradeoffs?

Slapstick13 May 2024 6:06 UTC

22 points

12 comments1 min readLW link

Slapstick 8 May 2024 20:28 UTC
11 points
12
on: Dating Roundup #3: Third Time’s the Charm
Very interesting post! I enjoyed it! Just had some thoughts about the poly section.

If you are polyamorous, and you meet someone plausibly 25% better, or even someone 0% better (I mean the person you are with is pretty good, no?) you are honor bound to try and make it happen.

I’m not sure why you’d be honour bound to make that work. Maybe the phrasing is just being hyperbolic but I don’t think refraining from pursuing a romantic relationship damages your poly honour.

Most people are not hyper-skilled in anything. Certainly they are not hyper-skilled in communication, emotional regulation and self-awareness.

If you define “hyper-skilled” as “way more skilled than average” then what you’re saying is true by definition. If its not defined relative to everyone else in a given culture, I think you can certainly say most people are hyper skilled at communication, emotional regulation and self-awareness in ways which their culture requires of them.

For example, most people in highly religious/authoritarian cultures are adept at those social skills which prevent them from being ostracized and condemned. Not reacting violently to insults would be considered hyper skilled in some cultures whereas it’s the minimum in others.

With that In mind I don’t think polyamory is as unrealistic or as demanding in its requirements as you make it out to be. People tend to become hyper skilled socially when it’s a requirement for what they’re doing, and when it’s normalized within their culture. If other structures are in place to replace the requirement for those particular skills, they won’t develop.

Polyamory probability selects for people who are socially skilled in the ways that help with polyamory, but being polyamorous also helps to develop those skills.

I think it’s fair to say that for many or most people it would be too costly to try to switch from monogamy towards polyamory when they’ve already been highly invested in developing their monogamy toolbox. I think that’s very different from saying only a small percentage of people have the capacity/potential to flourish being poly.

Scott then follows up with a highlights from the comments, where the arguments against polyamory seem convincing

I read most of the comments and I think pretty much all of the arguments against polyamory are coming from monogamous people with very limited/no experience with polyamory or polyamorous people. Not to say that discredits their arguments, but I’m typically pretty sceptical of arguments about lifestyles that are widely considered distasteful, coming from people who are far removed from those lifestyles, based on a couple anecdotes, if any.

Monogamous people are also already having way fewer children, and the type of person deciding to be polyamorous probably correlates pretty strongly with the type of person already deciding not to have kids. I don’t think there’s really good arguments that kids of poly people will be worse off, most of those arguments refer to practices which aren’t essential to being Poly. Many of the arguments appeal to reference classes that aren’t particularly applicable to a scenario where things are being done with care intentionally as opposed to as a result of scarcity, neglect, and unforseen challenging circumstances.

Slapstick 8 May 2024 17:55 UTC
1 point
−1
in reply to: Unirt’s comment on: Thoughts on seed oil
If you only eat potatoes you wouldn’t die from lack of sodium, the average person would probably become healthier only eating potatoes, it’s been done, though I’m not endorsing that. Potatoes and water already have sodium in them, maybe not quite at the ideal ratio per average calorie but it’s pretty close or maybe in that range depending on the person.

We certainly need some sodium/salt but I think the extent to which most people crave salt is a result of miscalibration due to overexposure and adaptations which aren’t aligned with our current environment.

I minimize added sodium and I don’t really have any cravings for salt anymore, unless you count the cravings I have generally for the food/nutrition I need to sustain myself, which contains roughly enough sodium naturally.

If someone is eating a varied diet of whole foods with no added salt it’s possible that adding a very marginal amount of extra salt would be healthier in some cases, but that’s very far from what is typical.

Slapstick 8 May 2024 17:12 UTC
0 points
0
in reply to: Unirt’s comment on: Thoughts on seed oil
I agree that seed oils should be avoided yes. I am skeptical of explanations pointing to some element particular to seed oils that is the main source of obesity and health problems, and I’d be worried this might lead people to be less concerned about consuming other unhealthy things.

Slapstick 29 Apr 2024 2:45 UTC
4 points
−2
in reply to: johnlawrenceaspden’s comment on: So What’s Up With PUFAs Chemically?
I’m unsure exactly what points you’re making.

I’m saying the idea that it’s healthiest to avoid virtually any refined oil is mainstream nutritional understanding. Do you dispute this? I’m not making a point about which refined oils/fats are better than others. I haven’t seen anything that has convinced me mainstream nutrition is wrong about that, but I don’t think its particularly important when they can all be avoided.

Typical doctors are not particularly reliable nutritional authorities. They have almost no nutrition training.

MacDonalds fries are clearly very unhealthy regardless of what they’re fried in. Do you have evidence that they’re healthier when fried in beef tallow?

Regardless, the point I was making was that the diets the original commenter mentioned all restrict things that mainstream nutrition already suggests cause health problems.

Refined sugar, refined grains, refined fats, and animal products are all things mainstream nutrition suggests cause health problems. All of the diets listed restrict at least one of those things, so it’s not surprising that people would report temporary improvements in health relative to a diet that doesn’t restrict any of them.

Slapstick 27 Apr 2024 16:19 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Joel Burget’s comment on: So What’s Up With PUFAs Chemically?
I am confused by this sort of reasoning. As far as I’m aware, mainstream nutritional science/understanding already points towards avoiding refined oils (and refined sugars).

There’s already explainations for why cutting out refined oil is be beneficial.

There are already reasonable explainations for why all of those diets might be reported to work, at least in the short term.

Slapstick 25 Apr 2024 15:04 UTC
0 points
0
in reply to: EGI’s comment on: Thoughts on seed oil
I would consider most bread sold in stores to be processed or ultra processed and I think that’s a pretty standard view but it’s true there might be some confusion.

Or take traditional soy sauce or cheese or beer or cured meats

I would consider all of those to be processed and unhealthy and I think thats a pretty standard view, but fair enough if there’s some confusion around those things.

So as a natural category “ultra processed” is mostly hogwash.

I guess my view is that it’s mostly not hogwash?

The least healthy things are clearly and broadly much more processed than the healthiest things.

Slapstick 25 Apr 2024 14:51 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Ann’s comment on: Thoughts on seed oil
I typically consume my greens with ground flax seeds in a smoothie.

I feel very confident that adding refined oil to vegetables shouldn’t be considered healthy, in the sense that the opportunity cost of 1 Tablespoon of olive oil is 120 calories, which is over a pound of spinach for example. Certainly it’s difficult to eat that much spinach and it’s probably unwise, but I just say that to illustrate that you can get a lot more nutrition from 120 calories than the oil will be adding, even if it makes the greens more bioavailable.

That said “healthy” is a complicated concept. If adding some oil to greens helps something eat greens they otherwise wouldn’t eat for example, that’s great.

Slapstick 25 Apr 2024 14:22 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: romeostevensit’s comment on: Thoughts on seed oil
I am perhaps not speaking as precisely as I should be. I appreciate your comments.

I believe it’s correct to say that if you consider all of the food/energy we consumed in the past 50+ million years, it’s virtually all plants.

The past 2-2.5 million years had us introducing more animal products to greater or lesser extents. Some were able to subsist on mostly animal products. Some consumed them very rarely.

In that sense it is a relatively recent introduction. My main point is that given our evolutionary history, the idea that plants would be healthier for us than animal products when we have both in abundance, and the idea that plants are more suitable to maintaining health long past reproductive age, aren’t immediately/obviously unreasonable ideas.

Slapstick 25 Apr 2024 1:52 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Ann’s comment on: Thoughts on seed oil
I would consider adding salt to something to be making that thing less healthy. If adding salt is essential to making something edible, I think it would be healthier to opt for something that doesn’t require added salt. That’s speaking generally though, someone might not be getting enough sodium, but typically there is adequate sodium in a diet of whole foods.

We often combine foods to make nutrients more accessible, like adding oil to greens with fat-soluble vitamins.

I would disagree that adding refined oil to greens would be healthy overall.

Not sure how much oil we’re talking, but a tablespoon of oil has more calories than an entire pound of greens. Even if the oil increases the availability of vitamins, I am very sceptical that it would be healthier than greens or other whole plants with an equivalent caloric content to the added oil. I believe it’s also the case that fats from whole foods can offer similar bioavailability effects.

At the same time, as far as I’m aware some kinds of vinegar might sometimes be a healthy addition to a meal, despite it’s processing being undoubtedly contrary to the general guidelines I’m defending, so even if I don’t agree about the oil I think the point still stands.

I do think you’re offering some valid points that confound my idea of simple guidelines somewhat, but I still don’t think they’re very significant exceptions to my main point.

Appreciate the dialogue:)

Slapstick

[Question] Benefi­tial habits/​per­sonal rules with very min­i­mal trade­offs?

[Question] Benefitial habits/personal rules with very minimal tradeoffs?