I believe that the poker bots met the mark for two player games and that Omaha/7-Stud are both not much of an issue and wouldn’t actually be required in any way, but actually winning the WSOP requires mostly winning at 9-10 person tables. I do realize that there are claims they’ve been able to handle that, but doing it in person is… trickier. Probably need another level of improvement before they have a reasonable shot at winning.
(Note that WSOP is a good structure but even so is still pretty random, so e.g. I would win it some % of the time if I entered, whereas if I played the type of match they used to test the poker bots, my chances would be about epsilon.)
I think there are plausible scenarios where we reach, likely not full herd immunity of ‘everyone can stop washing hands now, we’re fine’ but certainly levels that substantially impact R0 and can combine with ‘ordinary-life-compatible’ levels of avoidance (e.g. hand washing and face not touching, mask wearing, increased working from home and delivery, sports without crowds, less air travel, etc) to combine for effective herd immunity. The hope is that it will also include test+trace and thus be well below what it would take otherwise. I believe super spreaders are a big part of the correct model, and that we’re probably already at 1%+ infection rates for the USA and 10%+ (likely 20%+) for NYC, and that the first 20% infected is going to knock infection rates down 50%+ due to selection effects (which won’t be enough on its own in NYC or other big cities, but is a huge boost even there).
Usual warnings that I know nothing, but that’s my best guess.
Robin I think puts substantial probability that we end up 50%+ infected. I have less, but still substantial. I do think it’s a scenario worth having a mitigation plan for.
If and to the degree and in the circumstances and ways that the CDC is trustworthy, I desire to believe that the CDC is trustworthy.
If and to the degree and in the circumstances and ways that the CDC is untrustworthy, I desire to believe that the CDC is untrustworthy.
Let me not become attached to beliefs I may not want.
If you tell me that my statement that someone else is lying to us about important factual information that we need to get right in order to keep us and our friends and loved ones safe is true but harmful, and I need to delete my statement, because it is important that people believe the lying liars who are lying for our own good, and I should exercise prior restraint before I point out such things?
I too am surprised by this objection coming from David. But I also want to point out that it seems like it is mostly David’s objection, and the vast majority here are supportive of the post.
It also seems like David thinks the post contains errors, and he says he would not have been anything like this vocal otherwise. Obviously we should work out quickly whether or not the post does contain errors, and correct any we find.
Yes, I believe that is mostly right. I would like to get better gears on this, though.
Trust and loyalty seem to me to clearly be virtues if placed wisely and in moderation. Like all virtues, you go too far and bad things happen. Industrial scaling gives you new ways to backfire, but there’s certainly very non-industrial ways to go way overboard on either or both. Cults can be very small.
The plan would be to do a close listen to determine which songs are most important; ideally one would listen to the full albums (Pieces of You, Spirit, This Way, 0304 and Goodbye Alice in Wonderland, in that order), and in general I’ve updated more and more towards ‘respect the artist once you like multiple songs of theirs, and listen to full albums in order’ but that’s a lot of music.
I think this is the minimum story of the journey I want to talk about.
Who Will Save Your Soul?
Pieces of You
What’s Simple is True
Down So Long
Jesus Loves You
Serve the Ego
Love Me, Just Leave Me Alone
Yes U Can
Goodbye Alice in Wonderland
Words Get in the Way
Agree that would be cool if it was good enough that it got used. Unknown how good it would have to be before it would get used.
It was never my intent to say that the solution to mazes is less competition between corporations or between organizations. If you look at the solutions that were proposed, none of them were about decreasing competition.
The idea I was going for in terms of mazes, as I tried to explain here (it is entirely possible I botched this explanation on top of the initial confusion), was that super-perfect competition between people to get ahead within an organization (or larger system that likewise has not enough slots for too many people) is the problem here.
I also maintain, as a distinct claim, that if we were to see true perfect or super-perfect competition in the overall world, that would have some very bad effects, and that the reason we don’t see this is because perfect competition is a really weird set of assumptions that are not that close to applying in those situations, and I do think exploring these things more is interesting in its own right but isn’t what I’m trying to centrally do. Related to that I would argue that no, sufficiently competitive markets don’t do the thing you think they do, they do something else that can in some ways and situations be wonderful or even optimal, but that depends on what you care about and a lot of detail, and you can also get a big disaster.
Barring a massive edit or additional post creation I don’t know how to do better than that in terms of responding.
I was in no way trying to disguise that the problem of people faking alignment with the stack in order to extract resources is the biggest problem with the project, if someone were to actually try to implement it. If I get feedback that this wasn’t clear enough I will edit to make it more clear. And certainly one does not simply throw money at the problem.
So that far, fair enough.
However, this also incorporates a number of assumptions, and a general view of how things function, that I do not share.
First, the idea that alignment is a singular problem, or that it either does or does not have a solution. That seems very wrong to me. Alignment has varying known solutions depending on the situation and which prices you are wiling to pay and how much you care, and varies based on what alignment you are trying to verify. You can also attempt structure the deal such that people that are non-aligned (e.g. with the maze nature, or even not very into being opposed to it) do not want what you are offering.
I don’t think there are cheap solutions. And yes, eventually you will fail and have to start over, but I do think this is tractable for long enough to make a big difference.
Second, the idea that if there was a solution then it would be implemented because it outcompetes others just doesn’t match my model on multiple levels. I don’t think it would be worth paying the kind of prices the stack would be willing to pay, in order to align a generic corporation. It’s not even clear that this level of anti-maze would be an advantage in that spot, given the general reaction to such a thing on many levels and the need for deep interaction with mazes. And it’s often the case that there are big wins, and people just don’t know about them, or they know about them but for some reason don’t take them. I’ve stopped finding such things weird.
You can also do it backwards-only if you’re too scared of this—award it to people who you already are confident in now, and don’t extend it later to avoid corruption. It would be a good start on many goals.
In any case, yes, I have thought a lot about the practical problems, most of which such people already face much worse in other forms, and have many many thoughts about them, and the problem is hard. But not ‘give up this doesn’t actually help’ kinds of hard.
Not going to go deeper than that here. If I decide to expand on the problem I’ll do it with more posts (which are not currently planned).
The point is to compromise one’s interactions with society in the sense that you want to change what they are. But in this frame, the idea is that your interactions were previously being compromised by the worry that some day you may need to extract money from society / mazes, and this seeks to prevent that.
Consider the Thiel fellowship. Yes, it helps people get their start, but their orders are to go out into the world and start a normal business and raise money the normal way. It’s better than letting those people go to college, so yay fellowship, but it’s totally not this thing. It was a way to let kids who knew that college was a trap skip college. Or at least, that’s my understanding.
Thiel literally proposed funding me in the full stack way at a meeting—not personally for life, but for a proposed company, which was going to be biotech-related so it was much closer to normal procedure. He got the logic. But when he came back to his social situation he couldn’t follow through. Biotech has to work this way for companies because of hold-up problems and dependencies, you agree on the later rounds in advance with criteria for unlocking them. It’s not the full full stack, but it’s the core idea that you need to be secure from concerns that would bury the real operation if you had to worry about them.
Creating a new entire community in a new location makes perfect sense, and is one good way to consider implementation.
Dr Schrecker tells us that as a professional historian she “feels comfortable” with the evidence that it is true.
I love this line. It could not have come more straight out of Moral Mazes.
You are not wrong. Fixed in original. Mods please reimport.