4 ms·

It reminds me the often quoted story of the paperclip maximiser. This powerful AI set up by a factory to improve its production of paperclips. Its objective fun

by cm2187 7y ago

It reminds me the often quoted story of the paperclip maximiser. This powerful AI set up by a factory to improve its production of paperclips. Its objective function is solely to maximise the number of paperclips produced. So it does a great job at it, then becomes out of control, starts consuming all resources on earth to produce more paperclips, and once it has destroyed earth, goes on to take over the universe to produce paperclips. I feel a lot of the scientific advisors to governments are "covid19 death minimisers", solely focusing on people dying from this virus at the expense of any other consideration, like the effect of elective procedures being postponed indefinitely, tens of millions of families in hardship, economic collapse, etc.

conformist 7y ago
Nice analogy. Seems like politically it's hard to agree on how to compare deaths to other adverse consequences? I suspect some political leaders are just focusing on deaths as the quanitity that's easiest to measure, whereas others truly believe that deaths due to Covid should have a very high weight compared to everything else? It's kind of understandable that scientific advisors focus on their respective topic of expertise, maybe the problem is more the aggregation and evaluation of views.
KozmoNau7 7y ago
> "at the expense of any other consideration, like the effect of elective procedures being postponed indefinitely, tens of millions of families in hardship, economic collapse, etc." Ideology is causing this, specifically the idea that medical services must be profitable, and the idea that if you don't work, you don't get to eat. That we even accept this premise is utterly absurd.
- JackFr 7y ago
  That’s ludicrous. And no one is saying that. The argument is how much is too much? Is there any limit to what the governors can ask? Cause it feels like they’re governing by diktat, with little transparency or accountability. People are ok with it, because there is enough trust in our institutions to carry us through public health crisis. But it will wear thin. Politicians and the chattering classes are far removed from the damage they are doing and far to self congratulatory.
throwlaplace 7y ago
i feel like i'm taking crazy pills whenever i read these "consider the economic casualties". can you please tell me what the projections re economic casualties (ie people that die from e.g. starvation/privation post covid19) are for literally any other first world nation? my distinct impression is that only in the US are we being forced to choose between people dying from covid or people dying from poverty as a result of covid. shouldn't that tell you something about how we're approaching this problem in and of itself!?!
- cm2187 7y ago
  I don't think we are going to settle the debate utilitarianism vs kantianism in this thread but I'll try at least to defend one side. I didn't use the term "economic casualties". An economic crisis causes a huge amount of human suffering on massive scale, hardship on tens if not hundreds of millions of people. And this itself may have its own health consequences, but I think human suffering in all of its forms needs to be considered. But even if we assigned zero weight to that human suffering, if we go the route of pure "death minimisation", it is not even clear that the economic collapse route is less lethal. For two reasons: the first is that it is unclear what additional mortality the virus would cause vs a regular year. The median age of a covid19 victim seems to be in the 80s, and almost always (99% based on Italian figures) with some co-morbidity. It is not clear how many would have died within 18 months of something else. The other thing is that economic collapse does cause deaths also, for instance through political unstability. I think it is fair to say that the arab spring was triggered by the economic hardship caused by the 2008 crisis. And I don't know that we would have had a WW2 without the 1929 depression.
  - throwlaplace 7y ago
    >The other thing is that economic collapse does cause deaths also you've completely missed my point: is there any other western nation claiming that what's at stake here is economic collapse (and consequent deaths) or the deaths of the vulnerable to the virus? i think the answer is no (but i don't read german/norwegian/italian newspapers so i might be wrong). only in the united states are we forced to choose one or the other. you should stop to consider why that's the case.
take_a_breath 7y ago
Let’s be honest. None of us know all the data governments are using to make these decisions. As an example, you only mention people dying from the virus. A large percentage need to be intubated, will still live, and will carry long term negative impacts from that process. That’s an “other consideration” health officials have made.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by cm2187 7y ago

conformist 7y ago

Nice analogy. Seems like politically it's hard to agree on how to compare deaths to other adverse consequences? I suspect some political leaders are just focusing on deaths as the quanitity that's easiest to measure, whereas others truly believe that deaths due to Covid should have a very high weight compared to everything else? It's kind of understandable that scientific advisors focus on their respective topic of expertise, maybe the problem is more the aggregation and evaluation of views.

KozmoNau7 7y ago

> "at the expense of any other consideration, like the effect of elective procedures being postponed indefinitely, tens of millions of families in hardship, economic collapse, etc." Ideology is causing this, specifically the idea that medical services must be profitable, and the idea that if you don't work, you don't get to eat. That we even accept this premise is utterly absurd.

JackFr 7y ago
That’s ludicrous. And no one is saying that. The argument is how much is too much? Is there any limit to what the governors can ask? Cause it feels like they’re governing by diktat, with little transparency or accountability. People are ok with it, because there is enough trust in our institutions to carry us through public health crisis. But it will wear thin. Politicians and the chattering classes are far removed from the damage they are doing and far to self congratulatory.

throwlaplace 7y ago

i feel like i'm taking crazy pills whenever i read these "consider the economic casualties". can you please tell me what the projections re economic casualties (ie people that die from e.g. starvation/privation post covid19) are for literally any other first world nation? my distinct impression is that only in the US are we being forced to choose between people dying from covid or people dying from poverty as a result of covid. shouldn't that tell you something about how we're approaching this problem in and of itself!?!

cm2187 7y ago
I don't think we are going to settle the debate utilitarianism vs kantianism in this thread but I'll try at least to defend one side. I didn't use the term "economic casualties". An economic crisis causes a huge amount of human suffering on massive scale, hardship on tens if not hundreds of millions of people. And this itself may have its own health consequences, but I think human suffering in all of its forms needs to be considered. But even if we assigned zero weight to that human suffering, if we go the route of pure "death minimisation", it is not even clear that the economic collapse route is less lethal. For two reasons: the first is that it is unclear what additional mortality the virus would cause vs a regular year. The median age of a covid19 victim seems to be in the 80s, and almost always (99% based on Italian figures) with some co-morbidity. It is not clear how many would have died within 18 months of something else. The other thing is that economic collapse does cause deaths also, for instance through political unstability. I think it is fair to say that the arab spring was triggered by the economic hardship caused by the 2008 crisis. And I don't know that we would have had a WW2 without the 1929 depression.
- throwlaplace 7y ago
  >The other thing is that economic collapse does cause deaths also you've completely missed my point: is there any other western nation claiming that what's at stake here is economic collapse (and consequent deaths) or the deaths of the vulnerable to the virus? i think the answer is no (but i don't read german/norwegian/italian newspapers so i might be wrong). only in the united states are we forced to choose one or the other. you should stop to consider why that's the case.

take_a_breath 7y ago

Let’s be honest. None of us know all the data governments are using to make these decisions. As an example, you only mention people dying from the virus. A large percentage need to be intubated, will still live, and will carry long term negative impacts from that process. That’s an “other consideration” health officials have made.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]