I really want to experience and learn about as much of the world as I can, and pride myself on working to become a sort of modern day renaissance man, a bridge builder between very different people if you will.
T_W
Karma: 517
Quite surprised anyone would recommend this, but really pleased that someone found it valuable enough to put forward. I don’t think this has yet connected to anyone who has particularly designed a grassroots outreach strategy with these insights in mind, but it’s one of the pieces I put out last year which felt like it was contributing to a common knowledge base that can be put to use in the future, a sort of pre-intervention contribution which I’d generally like to see more of.
This post didn’t do well in the games of LessWrong karma, but it was probably the most personally fruitful use of my time on the site in 2023. It helped me clarify my own views which I had already formed but hadn’t put to paper, or cohered properly.
I also got to think about the movement as a whole, and really enjoyed some of what Elizabeth had to share. Particularly I remember her commentary on the lack of positivity in the movement, and have taken that to heart and really thought about how I can add more positivity in.
When thinking on this, you seriously do not think that one candidate will be better than the other? Your world view doesn’t bring you to a view where one is even a slightly better candidate?
Mmm okay a bit confused by the thrust of the first bit. Is it that you wish to set yourself apart from my view because you see it unavoidably leading to untenable positions (like self-extinguishing)?
Jumping to the rest of it, I liked how you put the latter option for the positioning of the shepard. I’m not sure the feeling out of the “shepard impulse” is something where the full sort of appreciation I think is important has come out.
But I think you’re right to point towards a general libertarian viewpoint as a crux here, because I’m relatively willing to reason through what’s good and bad for the community and work towards designing a world more in line with that vision, even if it’s more choice constrained.
But yeah, the society is a good example to help us figure out where to draw that line. It makes me most immediately wonder: is there anything so bad that you’d want to restrict people from doing it, even if they voluntarily entered into it? Is creating lives one of the key goods to you, such that most forms of lives will be worth just existing?
To answer your last question, it’s the latter, a world where synthetic alternatives and work on ecological stability yields a possibility of a future for predators who no longer must kill for survival. It would certainly mean a lot less cows and chickens exist, but my own conclusions from the above questions lead me to thinking this would be a better world.
Thanks for the continued dialogue, happy to jump back in :)
I think it’s very reasonable to take a “what would they consent to” perspective, and I do think this sort of set up would likely lead you to a world where humane executions and lives off the factory farm were approved of. But I guess I’d turn back to my originial point that this sort of relation seems apt to encourage a certain relation to the animal that I think will be naturally unstable and will naturally undermine a caring relationship with that animal.
Perhaps I just have a dash too much of deontology in me, but if you asked me to choose between a world where many people had kids but they ate them in the end, or a world of significantly fewer kids but where there was no such chowing down at the end of their life, I’d be apt to choose the latter. But deontology isn’t exactly the right frame because again, I think this will just sort of naturally encourage relationships that aren’t whole, relationships where you have to do the complicated emotional gymnastics of saying that you love an animal like their your friend one day and then chopping their head from their body the next and savoring the flavor of the flesh on the grill.
Maybe my view of love is limited, but I also think nearly every example you’d give me of people who’ve viewed animals as “sacred or people” but still ate them likely had deficient relationship to the animal. Take goats and the Islamic faith, for example. It’s not fully the “sacred” category like cows for Hindus, but this animal has come to take a ritualistic role in various celebrations of the relgion, and when I’ve talked to Muslims about what the reason for this treatment, or things being Halal are, they will normally point out that this is a more humane relation to have with the animal. The meat being “clean” is supposed to imply, to some degree, “moral”, but I think this relation isn’t quite there. I’ve seen throat cuttings from Eid which involve younger members of the family being brought into the fold by serving as axeman, often taking multiple strikes to severe the head in a way of slaughter that seems quite far from caring. One friend of mine, who grew up in India with his family raising a number of goats for this occassion, often saw the children loving the goats and having names for them and such. But on Eid this would stop, and I think what the tradition left my friend with is a far more friendly view to meat consumption than he would have developed otherwise.
My last stab at a response might be to bring up an analogy to slavery. I take the equivalent of your position here to be “look, if each slave can look at the potential life he will hold and prefer that life to no life at all, then isn’t that better than him not existing at all?” And to me it seems like I’d be again called to say “no”. We can create the life of a slave, we can create the life of a cow who we plan to eat in the end, but I’d rather just call off the suffering all together and refuse to create beings that will be shackled to such a life. It’s not a perfect analogy, but I hope it illustrates that we can deny the category entirely, and that that denial can open us up to a better future, one without slaves who prefer their life to not existing, but fellow citizens, one without farmed animals who prefer their life to not existing, but of pets we welcome happily into our families. That is the sort of world I hope for.
Not sure, but maybe the new AI institute they’re setting up as a result
Garrett responded to the main thrust well, but I will say that watermarking synthetic media seems fairly good as a next step for combating misinformation from AI imo. It’s certainly widely applicable (not really even sure what the thrust of this distinction was) because it is meant to apply to nearly all synthetic content. Why exactly do you think it won’t be helpful?
Yeah, I think the reference class for me here is other things the executive branch might have done, which leads me to “wow, this was way more than I expected”.
Worth noting is that they at least are trying to address deception by including it in the full bill readout. The type of model they hope to regulate here include those that permit “the evasion of human control or oversight through means of deception or obfuscation”. The director of the OMB also has to come up with tests and safeguards for “discriminatory, misleading, inflammatory, unsafe, or deceptive outputs”.
(k) The term “dual-use foundation model” means an AI model that is trained on broad data; generally uses self-supervision; contains at least tens of billions of parameters; is applicable across a wide range of contexts; and that exhibits, or could be easily modified to exhibit, high levels of performance at tasks that pose a serious risk to security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters, such as by:
(i) substantially lowering the barrier of entry for non-experts to design, synthesize, acquire, or use chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) weapons;
(ii) enabling powerful offensive cyber operations through automated vulnerability discovery and exploitation against a wide range of potential targets of cyber attacks; or
(iii) permitting the evasion of human control or oversight through means of deception or obfuscation.
Models meet this definition even if they are provided to end users with technical safeguards that attempt to prevent users from taking advantage of the relevant unsafe capabilities.
Hmm, I get the idea that people value succinctness a lot with these sorts of things, because there’s so much AI information to take in now, so I’m not so sure about the net effect, but I’m wondering maybe if I could get at your concern here by mocking up a percentage (i.e. what percentage of the proposals were risk oriented vs progress oriented)?
It wouldn’t tell you the type of stuff the Biden administration is pushing, but it would tell you the ratio which is what you seem perhaps most concerned with.
[Edit] this is included now
What alternative would you propose? I don’t really like mundane risk but agree that an alternative would be better. For now I’ll just change to “non-existential risk actions”
This is where I’d like to insert a meme with some text like “did you even read the post?” You:
Make a bunch of claims that you fail to support, like at all
Generally go in for being inflammatory by saying “it’s not a priority in any meaningful value system” i.e. “if you value this then your system of meaning in the world is in fact shit and not meaningful”
Pull the classic “what I’m saying is THE truth and whatever comes (the downvotes) will be a product of peoples denial of THE truth” which means anyone who responds you’ll likely just point to and say something like “That’s great that you care about karma, but I care about truth, and I’ve already reveled that divine truth in my comment so no real need to engage further here”
If I were to grade comments on epistemic hygiene (or maybe hygiene more generally), this would get something around a “actively playing in the sewer water” rating.
I don’t think we can rush to judgement on your character so quick. My ability to become a vegan, or rather to at least take this step in trying to be that sort of person, was heavily intertwined with some environmental factors. I grew up on a farm, so I experienced some of what people talk about first hand. Even though I didn’t process it as something overall bad at the time, a part of me was unsettled, and I think I drew pretty heavily on that memory and being there in my vegan transition period.
I guess the point is something like you can’t just become that person the day after you decide you want to be. Sometimes the best thing you can do is try to learn and engage more and see where that gets you. With this example that would mean going to a slaughterhouse yourself and participating, which maybe isn’t a half bad idea (though I haven’t thought this through at all, so I may be missing something).
Also giving up chicken is not a salve, its a great first step, a trial period that can serve as a positive exemplar of what’s possible for the version of yourself that might wish to fully revert back one day. I believe in you, and wish you the best of luck with your journey :)
Have no idea what it entails but I enjoy conversing and learning more about the world, so I’d happy do a dialogue! Happy to keep it in the clouds too.
But yeah you make a good point. I mean, I’m not convinced what the proper schelling point is, and would eagerly eat up any research on this. Maybe what I think is that for a specific group of people like me (no idea what exactly defines that group) it makes sense, but that generally what’s going to make sense for a person has to be quite tailored to their own situation and traits.
I would push back on the no animal products through the mouth bit. Sure, it happens to include lesser forms of suffering that might be less important than changing other things in the world (and if you assumed that this was zero sum that may be a problem, but I don’t think it is). But generally it focuses on avoiding suffering that you are in control of, in a way that updates in light of new evidence. Vegetarianism in India is great because it leads to less meat consumption, but because it involves specific things to avoid instead of setting a basis as suffering it becomes much harder to convincingly explain why they should update to avoid eggs for example. So yeah, protesting rat poison factories may not be a mainstream vegan thing, but I’d be willing to bet vegans are less apt to use it. And sure, vegans may be divided on what to do about sugar, but I’d be surprised if any said “it doesn’t involved an animal going in my mouth so it’s okay with me”. I don’t think it’s arbitrary but find it rather intentional.
I could continue on here but I’m also realizing some part of you wanted to avoid debates about vegan stuffs, so I’ll let this suffice and explicitly say if you don’t want to respond I fully understand (but would be happy to hear if you do!).
Thanks for such an in depth and wonderful response, I have a couple of questions.
On 1. Perhaps the biggest reason I’ve stayed away from Pomodors is the question of how much time for breaks you can take before you need to start logging it as a reduction in time worked. Where have you come out on that debate? I.e. maybe you’ve found increased productivity makes the breaks totally worth it and this hasn’t really been an issue for you.
On 3. How are you strict with your weekends? The vibe I get from the rest is that normally you make sure what you’re doing is restful?
On 3.5. Adding to the anecdata, I keep a fairly sporadic schedule that often extends past normal hours, and I’ve found that it works pretty well for me. I do find that when I’m feeling a bit down that switching back to normal hours is better for me though, because I’m apt to start playing video games in the middle of the day because I think “ah, I’m remote and have a flexible schedule, so I can do what I want!” when in reality playing video games during the day is usually just me doing a poor job of dealing with something that then ends up not resolved later and leaves me in a tricky spot to get work done.
On 4, I’d love to hear more about your targets: are they like just more concrete than goals? Do you have some sort of accountability system that you keep yourself from overriding? I think I’m coming to realize I work better with deadlines, but I’m still really unsure how to implement them in a way that forces me to stick to them but also that allows me to override it in circumstances where I’d be better off if I could push something back a bit.
Sure, sure. I’m not saying there isn’t perhaps an extreme wing, I just think it’s quite important to say this isn’t the average, and highlight that the majority of vegans have a view more like the one I mentioned above.
I think this is a distinction worth making, because when you collapse everyone into one camp, you begin to alienate the majority that actually more or less agrees with you. I don’t know what the term for the group you’re talking about is, but maybe evangelical vegans isn’t a bad term to use for now.
First thanks for your kind words, they were nice to receive :)
But I also think this is wonderfully put, and I think you’re right to point to your feelings on truth as similar. As truth for you, life to me is sacred, and I think I generally build a lot of my world out of that basic fact. I would note that I think one another’s values are likely important for us to, as truth is also really important to me and I value honestly and not lying more than most people I know. And on the flipside I imagine that you value life quite a bit.
But looking at the specific case you imagine, yeah it’s really hard to imagine either totally separate on their own because I find they often lead to one another. I guess one crux for me that might give me doubts on the goodness of the truth world is not being sure on the “whether humans are innately good” question. If they aren’t innately good, then everyone being honest about their intentions and what they want to do may mean places in the world where repression or some sort of suffering is common. I guess the way I imagine it going is having a hard time dealing with the people who honesty just want some version of the world that involves inflicting some sort of harm on others. I imagine that many would likely not want this, and they would make rules as such, but that they’d have a hard time critiquing others in the world far away from themselves if they’ve been perfectly straightforward and honest about where they stand with their values.
But I can easily imagine counterarguments here, and it’s not as if a life where reducing suffering were of utmost importance wouldn’t run the risk of some pretty large deviations from the truth that seem bad (i.e. a vegan government asserting there are zero potentials for negative health effects for going vegan). But then we could get into standard utilitarian responses like “oh well they really should have been going in for something like rule utilitarianism that would have told them this was an awful decision on net” and so on and so forth. Not sure where I come out either really.
Note: I’d love to know what practical response you have, it might not be my crux but could be insightful!
I think the first paragraph is well put, and do agree that my camp is likely more apt to be evangelical. But I also want to say that I don’t think the second paragraph is quite representative. I know approximately 0 vegans that support the “cross the line once” philosophy. I think the current status quo is something much closer to what you imagine in the second to last sentence, where the recommendation that’s most often come to me is “look, as long as you are really thinking about it and trying to do what’s best not just for you but for the animals as well, that’s all it takes. We all have weak moments and veganism doesn’t mean perfection, it’s just doing the best with what you’ve got”[1]
- ^
Sure, there are some obvious caveats here like you can’t be a vegan if you haven’t significantly reduced your consumption of animals/animal products. Joe, who eats steak every night and starts every morning with eggs and cheese and a nice hearty glass of dairy milk won’t really be a vegan even if he claims the title. But I don’t see the average vegan casting stones at and of the various partial reduction diets, generally I think they’re happy to just have some more people on board.
- ^
What Elizabeth had to say here is broadly right. See my comment above, for some more in depth reasoning as to why I think the opposite may be true, but basically I think that the sort of loving relationship formed with other animals that I imagine as the thing that holds together commitment over a long period of time, over a large range of hard circumstances, is tricky to create when you don’t go full on. I have no idea what’s sustainable for you though, and want to emphasize that whatever works to reduce is something I’m happy with, so I’m quite glad for your ameliatarian addition.
I’m also trying to update my views here, so can I ask for how long you’ve been on a veg diet? And if you predict any changes in the near future?
Just want to say I think the design is brilliant in the age where LW is competing for those posting on Substack and others, very well done.