6 ms·

I don't understand why people always assume upside and downside risk are symmetrical on the big issues. Consider the set of potential outcomes on a few politica

I don't understand why people always assume upside and downside risk are symmetrical on the big issues. Consider the set of potential outcomes on a few political hot-buttons: Global warming (incorrect): We wasted some fraction of human time and resources implementing carbon capture that wasn't necessary. Minor economic hit compared to the counterfactual situation where global warming was never considered. Global warming (correct): We prevented the collapse of the planet's climate and the ensuing death of most living creatures. AI will take our jobs (incorrect): We wasted time unnecessarily preparing for a paradigm shift in employment that never happened. Universal basic income was implemented which led to a small positive/negative change in worldwide economic productivity. AI will take our jobs (correct): UBI was never implemented. A feedback loop emerged where almost all wealth siphoned quickly to a few individuals. The reward mechanism that incentivized the general population to work broke, and hasty attempts by the government to implement a "fair" system of resource distribution among the now "economically worthless" population failed and led to mass supply chain failure, worldwide mental instability, and societal collapse. Even if you consider the probability of the latter scenarios to be something like 1%, I would argue they are still worth wasting human time and resources on.

pdonis 3y ago
> Global warming (incorrect): We wasted some fraction of human time and resources implementing carbon capture that wasn't necessary. Minor economic hit No, it's not at all a "minor economic" hit with the measures that are being proposed. It is a huge reduction in standard of living for everybody in first world countries, and forcing those who currently don't enjoy a first world standard of living to stay in poverty. Of course, you could avoid this by building nuclear power plants instead of the draconian carbon reduction/elimination measures that are being proposed. Then we could have the best of both worlds. But no climate change alarmists are proposing that. Why not? > Global warming (correct): We prevented the collapse of the planet's climate and the ensuing death of most living creatures. No actual scientific predictions make this claim. It is hype and FUD. > AI will take our jobs (incorrect): We wasted time unnecessarily preparing for a paradigm shift in employment that never happened. Universal basic income was implemented which led to a small positive/negative change in worldwide economic productivity. If you think UBI will just be a "small" change, I have some oceanfront property in Tibet I'd like to sell you. > AI will take our jobs (correct): UBI was never implemented. A feedback loop emerged where almost all wealth siphoned quickly to a few individuals. The reward mechanism that incentivized the general population to work broke, and hasty attempts by the government to implement a "fair" system of resource distribution among the now "economically worthless" population failed and led to mass supply chain failure, worldwide mental instability, and societal collapse. The consequences you describe here are actually consequences of UBI, not "AI". The potential negative consequences of "AI" are negative consequences of particular humans using AI as a tool to prey on everyone else--just as such humans have always used whatever tools they can to prey on everyone else. The solution to the problem is not to ban the tool (even if that were possible--you can't ban knowledge). It's to stop letting a few humans prey on everyone else. And the best way to do that is to decentralize power and stop thinking that governments can solve problems. Governments are actually an even better tool than "AI" for some humans to use to prey on everyone else.
- somewhereoutth 3y ago
  > stop thinking that governments can solve problems In a functional democracy, with rule of law and strong civic institutions, governments is exactly how we solve problems. The more effective the government, the less problems. Compare Europe with the US on policing, food, access to justice, tax filing, banking, fraud prevention, environmental protections, life expectancy, obesity, systems of measurement, public transport, democratic accountability, protection of the elderly, feeding children (I could go on). The US still wrestles with problems that Europe (and much of the rest of the world) has forgotten about - and it does that because it confuses 'freedom' with lack of effective central government.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > In a functional democracy, with rule of law and strong civic institutions, governments is exactly how we solve problems. Some problems, perhaps. But not all problems. In the US, the government is supposed to be restricted to a certain set of functions that are explicitly delegated to it in the Constitution. It is not supposed to solve everything that anyone thinks is a problem. Of course, the actual practice in the US has diverged greatly from this, but that is a bug, not a feature. > Compare Europe with the US I have no problem with Europe having different policies on this from the US. If Europe wants to have government solve many more problems, that's up to Europe. And people who want to live under that model of government should live in Europe. The US was supposed to be built on a different model of government, for people who want to live under a different model of government from Europe. > The US still wrestles with problems that Europe (and much of the rest of the world) has forgotten about - and it does that because it confuses 'freedom' with lack of effective central government. No, the US wrestles with these problems because we prefer to wrestle with them instead of sweeping them under the rug and hoping that "government" will somehow solve them without we the people having to get involved. I don't share your rosy view of how well Europe has actually solved the problems, but I don't live in Europe so I am not personally affected. And conversely, those who don't live in the US should not presume to tell me how well the US is doing. I live here and I can judge that for myself.
    - 3y ago
somewhereoutth 3y ago
With global warming - a clear and present danger, the only realistic immediate and effective solution is to stop digging up fossil fuels and burning them. However almost all the world's economy is predicated on precisely that, so it is a big ask. With AI - a nebulous threat based on not much more than some 21st century parlor tricks, it is quite reasonable to 'cross that bridge when we reach it' (which may be never).
- j2bax 3y ago
  >it is quite reasonable to 'cross that bridge when we reach it' (which may be never). Unless you are a junior copy writer... Or a midlevel photographer... Or production artist... You better cross that bridge before your next rent check is due.
  - somewhereoutth 3y ago
    Well indeed - but copy writers and artwork creators having to up their game is hardly an extinction level event.
  - tticvs 3y ago
    Just like weavers, farmhands, humans calculators, stenographers, scribes, etc before them.
graemep 3y ago
The problem with both those is that the possibilities are not simple correct/incorrect sets of predictable outcomes. There are a whole lot of probable scenarios and possible responses. What is the right response? How do we execute it? Take global warming. What if we have already passed some tipping point and its too late to do anything? Are current responses adequate? Are we adopting the right technologies to replace fossil fuels? Both your examples of "incorrect" (which I am interpreting as global warming has no bad effects whatsoever) and "death of most living creatures" are extreme and highly improbable. AI is even worse as we do not know what the possible outcomes are - we do not know what the technology is capable of, or how it will develop. I agree that UBI will do good either way. However, I do not think your AI scenario is that likely. It will not lead to supply chain failure, for example - the work will still be done. It will also not be a sudden change as "AI" is not going to take over everyone's jobs suddenly - it will be a gradual process.
- jdiff 3y ago
  > What if we have already passed some tipping point and its too late to do anything? Even if we've already passed a number of tipping points, the choice between "worst case" and "less so" is the difference between millions, even billions of lives.
financltravsty 3y ago
Somewhat off-topic, but I must ask: does UBI not depend on expected infinite economic growth? If the economy grows, then we assume the tax base supplanting the UBI coffers will continue to match outflows. But if the economy does not grow, then... what happens? The starkest issue in my mind is what is happening in the EU and the US: social welfare is not looking sustainable from an economic perspective. And if we do implement UBI to such a degree that people are allowed to live a life completely without any physical need for traditional income... wouldn't that cause the collapse of the country's economy when its workers realize there is no longer a point to laboring? At that point, who exactly is going to pay for UBI?
- dataflow 3y ago
  > And if we do implement UBI to such a degree that people are allowed to live a life completely without any physical need for traditional income. I think you're forgetting the B in UBI. The idea is to guarantee basic necessities, not to maintain a high quality of life.
  - financltravsty 3y ago
    I don't believe I have forgotten. I'm assuming it will be able to pay for not-great-but-liveable housing, sufficient food, and healthcare. That is a life that I consider to be completely without any physical need for traditional income. Granted, there are people that want more material things, and they would be motivated to labor for those things. However, my intuition tells me they're not a majority -- or enough to continue supplanting the UBI coffers.
    - nemomarx 3y ago
      I feel like a majority of people want to be able to afford new clothes, entertainment, and occasional luxuries like a dinner out or travel. Even if we have people who labor intermittently to save up for their next purchase like that you'd still see a pool of labor from that.
      - 3y ago
jancsika 3y ago
> Global warming (incorrect): We wasted some fraction of human time and resources implementing carbon capture that wasn't necessary. Minor economic hit compared to the counterfactual situation where global warming was never considered. Consider carefully: what would happen if the massive body of corroborating evidence for global warming-- across many disparate fields of scientific inquiry-- was incorrect? We'd likely get a massive rejection of the sciences as a whole that makes current anti-science trends look minor by comparison. E.g., notice how many low-effort HN commenters currently reject social science out of hand because of the risk of P hacking. Imagine what happens when that goes into geology, biology, etc. Also, consider that Pentagon studies that make important predictions about refugee movements based partly on the same science. An evidence-based rejection of so many key institutions of civilization wouldn't be as catastrophic as doing nothing if global warming is correct, but it's a close second. Maybe I'm missing a steelman argument here? It's really difficult to imagine a version of "Global warming (incorrect)" which doesn't substantially depend on our knowledge of global warming being correct and doing something about it. Edit: Just be clear, I feel like this Pascal's wager argument is a bit like trying to talk a pyramid schemer down by explaining exponential explosion to them. You've got to realize at that point if it were simply about logic you probably wouldn't have an adversary to argue with at all.
jovial_cavalier 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager
eloisant 3y ago
It sounds a lot like Pascal's wager. The Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist: we wasted some fraction of human time and resources worshipping the Spaghetti monster. The Spaghetti Monster exists: we gain access to the Pastafarian Heaven for eternity. Surely we should all convert? Even if the probability of the Spaghetti Monster existing is very low it's still worth wasting just a little bit of time and resources on prayers.
- TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
  The other side of the wager is rarely considered (AKA Homer’s Wager): What if the Udon Noodle Monster exist and he intensely hates people who worship someone else instead of him but is neutral on people who don’t worship at all.
  - Xcelerate 3y ago
    Simple solution: consider the universal a priori probability of monster X as the negative exponentially weighted size of the minimum length Turing machine necessary to describe the monster, normalized against all other possible monsters Y, Z, etc. (if the monster isn’t describable by a computable process, we can’t change our behavior with regard to it so we’re screwed either way.) Then, consider a “reward program” that takes as input the computable description of a monster and returns the afterlife reward as a function of worship time. (There is some nuance here; should reward be defined as negative aggregate suffering? Median pleasure over afterlife duration? Do we include other people’s suffering in exchange for our own? Different debate.) At this point, you consider all possible divisions of finite worship time among the infinite set of monsters whose descriptions are partial recursive functions and compute the probability distribution of reward for each configuration using the universal a priori probabilities of monster existence (while taking into account second order effects, e.g. monster A reduces reward for time spent worshiping monster B). From here, you specify a minimum threshold of acceptable reward and select the configuration of worship time that corresponds to the highest probability of achieving that threshold.
    - tpoacher 3y ago
sidewndr46 3y ago
This is just a bad retelling of Pascal's wager. The 'incorrect' version of global warming is that we fall behind other countries in all measures because we're focusing on a non-issue. One of those invades us and takes us over.

pdonis 3y ago

> Global warming (incorrect): We wasted some fraction of human time and resources implementing carbon capture that wasn't necessary. Minor economic hit No, it's not at all a "minor economic" hit with the measures that are being proposed. It is a huge reduction in standard of living for everybody in first world countries, and forcing those who currently don't enjoy a first world standard of living to stay in poverty. Of course, you could avoid this by building nuclear power plants instead of the draconian carbon reduction/elimination measures that are being proposed. Then we could have the best of both worlds. But no climate change alarmists are proposing that. Why not? > Global warming (correct): We prevented the collapse of the planet's climate and the ensuing death of most living creatures. No actual scientific predictions make this claim. It is hype and FUD. > AI will take our jobs (incorrect): We wasted time unnecessarily preparing for a paradigm shift in employment that never happened. Universal basic income was implemented which led to a small positive/negative change in worldwide economic productivity. If you think UBI will just be a "small" change, I have some oceanfront property in Tibet I'd like to sell you. > AI will take our jobs (correct): UBI was never implemented. A feedback loop emerged where almost all wealth siphoned quickly to a few individuals. The reward mechanism that incentivized the general population to work broke, and hasty attempts by the government to implement a "fair" system of resource distribution among the now "economically worthless" population failed and led to mass supply chain failure, worldwide mental instability, and societal collapse. The consequences you describe here are actually consequences of UBI, not "AI". The potential negative consequences of "AI" are negative consequences of particular humans using AI as a tool to prey on everyone else--just as such humans have always used whatever tools they can to prey on everyone else. The solution to the problem is not to ban the tool (even if that were possible--you can't ban knowledge). It's to stop letting a few humans prey on everyone else. And the best way to do that is to decentralize power and stop thinking that governments can solve problems. Governments are actually an even better tool than "AI" for some humans to use to prey on everyone else.

somewhereoutth 3y ago
> stop thinking that governments can solve problems In a functional democracy, with rule of law and strong civic institutions, governments is exactly how we solve problems. The more effective the government, the less problems. Compare Europe with the US on policing, food, access to justice, tax filing, banking, fraud prevention, environmental protections, life expectancy, obesity, systems of measurement, public transport, democratic accountability, protection of the elderly, feeding children (I could go on). The US still wrestles with problems that Europe (and much of the rest of the world) has forgotten about - and it does that because it confuses 'freedom' with lack of effective central government.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > In a functional democracy, with rule of law and strong civic institutions, governments is exactly how we solve problems. Some problems, perhaps. But not all problems. In the US, the government is supposed to be restricted to a certain set of functions that are explicitly delegated to it in the Constitution. It is not supposed to solve everything that anyone thinks is a problem. Of course, the actual practice in the US has diverged greatly from this, but that is a bug, not a feature. > Compare Europe with the US I have no problem with Europe having different policies on this from the US. If Europe wants to have government solve many more problems, that's up to Europe. And people who want to live under that model of government should live in Europe. The US was supposed to be built on a different model of government, for people who want to live under a different model of government from Europe. > The US still wrestles with problems that Europe (and much of the rest of the world) has forgotten about - and it does that because it confuses 'freedom' with lack of effective central government. No, the US wrestles with these problems because we prefer to wrestle with them instead of sweeping them under the rug and hoping that "government" will somehow solve them without we the people having to get involved. I don't share your rosy view of how well Europe has actually solved the problems, but I don't live in Europe so I am not personally affected. And conversely, those who don't live in the US should not presume to tell me how well the US is doing. I live here and I can judge that for myself.
  - 3y ago

somewhereoutth 3y ago

With global warming - a clear and present danger, the only realistic immediate and effective solution is to stop digging up fossil fuels and burning them. However almost all the world's economy is predicated on precisely that, so it is a big ask. With AI - a nebulous threat based on not much more than some 21st century parlor tricks, it is quite reasonable to 'cross that bridge when we reach it' (which may be never).

j2bax 3y ago
>it is quite reasonable to 'cross that bridge when we reach it' (which may be never). Unless you are a junior copy writer... Or a midlevel photographer... Or production artist... You better cross that bridge before your next rent check is due.
- somewhereoutth 3y ago
  Well indeed - but copy writers and artwork creators having to up their game is hardly an extinction level event.
- tticvs 3y ago
  Just like weavers, farmhands, humans calculators, stenographers, scribes, etc before them.

graemep 3y ago

The problem with both those is that the possibilities are not simple correct/incorrect sets of predictable outcomes. There are a whole lot of probable scenarios and possible responses. What is the right response? How do we execute it? Take global warming. What if we have already passed some tipping point and its too late to do anything? Are current responses adequate? Are we adopting the right technologies to replace fossil fuels? Both your examples of "incorrect" (which I am interpreting as global warming has no bad effects whatsoever) and "death of most living creatures" are extreme and highly improbable. AI is even worse as we do not know what the possible outcomes are - we do not know what the technology is capable of, or how it will develop. I agree that UBI will do good either way. However, I do not think your AI scenario is that likely. It will not lead to supply chain failure, for example - the work will still be done. It will also not be a sudden change as "AI" is not going to take over everyone's jobs suddenly - it will be a gradual process.

jdiff 3y ago
> What if we have already passed some tipping point and its too late to do anything? Even if we've already passed a number of tipping points, the choice between "worst case" and "less so" is the difference between millions, even billions of lives.

financltravsty 3y ago

Somewhat off-topic, but I must ask: does UBI not depend on expected infinite economic growth? If the economy grows, then we assume the tax base supplanting the UBI coffers will continue to match outflows. But if the economy does not grow, then... what happens? The starkest issue in my mind is what is happening in the EU and the US: social welfare is not looking sustainable from an economic perspective. And if we do implement UBI to such a degree that people are allowed to live a life completely without any physical need for traditional income... wouldn't that cause the collapse of the country's economy when its workers realize there is no longer a point to laboring? At that point, who exactly is going to pay for UBI?

dataflow 3y ago
> And if we do implement UBI to such a degree that people are allowed to live a life completely without any physical need for traditional income. I think you're forgetting the B in UBI. The idea is to guarantee basic necessities, not to maintain a high quality of life.
- financltravsty 3y ago
  I don't believe I have forgotten. I'm assuming it will be able to pay for not-great-but-liveable housing, sufficient food, and healthcare. That is a life that I consider to be completely without any physical need for traditional income. Granted, there are people that want more material things, and they would be motivated to labor for those things. However, my intuition tells me they're not a majority -- or enough to continue supplanting the UBI coffers.
  - nemomarx 3y ago
    I feel like a majority of people want to be able to afford new clothes, entertainment, and occasional luxuries like a dinner out or travel. Even if we have people who labor intermittently to save up for their next purchase like that you'd still see a pool of labor from that.
    - 3y ago

jancsika 3y ago

> Global warming (incorrect): We wasted some fraction of human time and resources implementing carbon capture that wasn't necessary. Minor economic hit compared to the counterfactual situation where global warming was never considered. Consider carefully: what would happen if the massive body of corroborating evidence for global warming-- across many disparate fields of scientific inquiry-- was incorrect? We'd likely get a massive rejection of the sciences as a whole that makes current anti-science trends look minor by comparison. E.g., notice how many low-effort HN commenters currently reject social science out of hand because of the risk of P hacking. Imagine what happens when that goes into geology, biology, etc. Also, consider that Pentagon studies that make important predictions about refugee movements based partly on the same science. An evidence-based rejection of so many key institutions of civilization wouldn't be as catastrophic as doing nothing if global warming is correct, but it's a close second. Maybe I'm missing a steelman argument here? It's really difficult to imagine a version of "Global warming (incorrect)" which doesn't substantially depend on our knowledge of global warming being correct and doing something about it. Edit: Just be clear, I feel like this Pascal's wager argument is a bit like trying to talk a pyramid schemer down by explaining exponential explosion to them. You've got to realize at that point if it were simply about logic you probably wouldn't have an adversary to argue with at all.

jovial_cavalier 3y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

eloisant 3y ago

It sounds a lot like Pascal's wager. The Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist: we wasted some fraction of human time and resources worshipping the Spaghetti monster. The Spaghetti Monster exists: we gain access to the Pastafarian Heaven for eternity. Surely we should all convert? Even if the probability of the Spaghetti Monster existing is very low it's still worth wasting just a little bit of time and resources on prayers.

TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
The other side of the wager is rarely considered (AKA Homer’s Wager): What if the Udon Noodle Monster exist and he intensely hates people who worship someone else instead of him but is neutral on people who don’t worship at all.
- Xcelerate 3y ago
  Simple solution: consider the universal a priori probability of monster X as the negative exponentially weighted size of the minimum length Turing machine necessary to describe the monster, normalized against all other possible monsters Y, Z, etc. (if the monster isn’t describable by a computable process, we can’t change our behavior with regard to it so we’re screwed either way.) Then, consider a “reward program” that takes as input the computable description of a monster and returns the afterlife reward as a function of worship time. (There is some nuance here; should reward be defined as negative aggregate suffering? Median pleasure over afterlife duration? Do we include other people’s suffering in exchange for our own? Different debate.) At this point, you consider all possible divisions of finite worship time among the infinite set of monsters whose descriptions are partial recursive functions and compute the probability distribution of reward for each configuration using the universal a priori probabilities of monster existence (while taking into account second order effects, e.g. monster A reduces reward for time spent worshiping monster B). From here, you specify a minimum threshold of acceptable reward and select the configuration of worship time that corresponds to the highest probability of achieving that threshold.
  - tpoacher 3y ago

sidewndr46 3y ago

This is just a bad retelling of Pascal's wager. The 'incorrect' version of global warming is that we fall behind other countries in all measures because we're focusing on a non-issue. One of those invades us and takes us over.