Writings on philosophy, investing, and altruism from a person with some thoughts on philosophy, investing, and altruism
Or, more accurately, the fact that he said the Avengers only won once can’t be taken as evidence about what he really saw.
This post contains spoilers for Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame.
Continue readingOn most questions about the future, I don’t hold a strong view. I read the aggregate prediction of forecasters on Metaculus or Manifold Markets and then I pretty much believe whatever it says.
Various attempts have been made to forecast existential risk. I would like to be able to form views based on those forecasts—especially on non-AI x-risks, because I barely know anything about synthetic biology or nuclear winter or catastrophic climate change. Unfortunately, none of the aggregate forecasts look reliable.
Continue readingIt’s common for monthly subscription services to offer a discount if you pay annually instead. That might be a bad deal.
Example: Suppose a one-month subscription costs $10/month and one-year subscription gives you a 10% discount, which averages out to $9/month. Say you expect to maintain a subscription for about three years before canceling.
A one-year subscription will save you about $36 ($1 per month for 36 months), but you can also expect to waste $54: when you decide to stop using it, you will still have (on average) six months of subscription left ($54 = $9/month for 6 months). So you end up spending $18 more than you would have with the monthly plan.
If you get a one-year subscription that you expect to last three years, then you will end up wasting 1/6 of the total amount you paid for (in expectation). That’s only worth it if the annual subscription offers a discount greater than 1/6.
If you expect to use the service for five years, you need to get at least a 10% discount to justify switching to an annual subscription.
In general, you need to use the subscription for at least N years to justify a discount of 1/(2N).
How do you guess how long you’ll keep using the service? According to the Lindy effect, you should expect that you will maintain a subscription for as long again as you’ve already had it for. Therefore, if you can get a 10% discount with an annual plan and you’ve already had the subscription for more than five years, you should go ahead and buy the annual plan.
Among people who have thought about LLM consciousness, a common belief is something like
LLMs might be conscious soon, but they aren’t yet.
How sure are we that they aren’t conscious already?
I made a quick list of arguments for/against LLM consciousness, and it seems to me that high confidence in non-consciousness is not justified. I don’t feel comfortable assigning less than a 10% chance to LLM consciousness, and I believe a 1% chance is unreasonably confident. But I am interested in hearing arguments I may have missed.
For context, I lean toward the computational theory of consciousness, but I also think it’s reasonable to have high uncertainty about which theory of consciousness is correct.
Continue readingConfidence: Likely.
I am here to clear fruit’s name against the accusations that have been made. Fruit is one of the healthiest types of foods—perhaps the healthiest food group—and we should bestow upon it the shining reputation it deserves.
Continue readingOn many occasions, I edit old posts to make additions, correct mistakes, etc. But there’s no way to know about updates unless you go digging through the archives. So I’m going to start publishing regular (perhaps quarterly) digests of the significant updates I’ve made to old posts.
Continue readingConfidence: Almost certain.
I kept telling myself I wouldn’t write this post because it doesn’t matter. But I’ve seen one too many smart people speaking favorably about ergodicity economics. I believe the concept of ergodicity has essentially nothing going for it, and in this post I will explain why.
Ergodicity economics is one of those rare theories that somehow manages to be both unfalsifiable and false.
I originally wrote that sentence as a joke, then I deleted it, then I re-wrote it because I realized it’s actually true. Ergodicity economics is sufficiently vague in general that it can’t be falsified, but it is commonly interpreted as making specific falsifiable claims that are, in fact, false.
Continue reading
Edited 2025-05-26 to correct an inaccuracy—originally I said butter goes in the Dairy group but actually it goes in the Fats, Oils & Sweets group.
The original 1992 version of the USDA Food Pyramid was bad. So bad that people who scrupulously followed the guidelines were barely healthier than the people who ignored them.1
But the Food Pyramid was not just wrong: it was marvelously wrong. It was wrong in many ways simultaneously. It achieved levels of wrongness hitherto undreamed of.
What was wrong about it? I will start with the obvious answers, and move into the philosophical.
Continue readingIf you’re losing weight, does lifting weights reduce how much muscle you lose? Is it possible to entirely prevent muscle loss (or even gain muscle)?
Murphy & Koehler (2021)1 did a meta-analysis on this question. They collected experiments where the experimental groups did resistance training while eating at an energy deficit (RT+ED), and the control groups did resistance training while eating a normal amount of food (RT+CON).
They found a strong association between change in lean mass and the magnitude of the energy deficit (slope = –0.325, p = 0.001). The meta-analysis predicts that you can eat at a deficit of 500 calories per day without losing any lean mass, but you will lose mass at a larger deficit.
(The meta-analysis also reported that participants gained strength in almost every study, even with larger calorie deficits. That’s useful to know, but I will focus on lean mass for this post.)
I should mention that what we actually care about is muscle loss, not lean mass loss. Lean mass includes anything that isn’t fat—muscle fibers, organs, glycogen, etc. Muscle mass is harder to measure. We don’t know what happened to study participants’ muscle, only their total lean mass.
Let’s set that aside and assume lean mass is a useful proxy for muscle mass.
The authors showed a plot of every individual study’s experimental group (RT+ED) and control group (RT+CON), along with a regression line predicting lean mass change as a function of energy deficit:2
But…does this regression line look a little odd to you?
Continue reading
Many plans for how to safely build superintelligent AI have a critical section that goes like this:
You could call this process “alignment bootstrapping”.
This is a central feature of DeepMind’s plan (see “Amplified oversight”), Anthropic’s plan (see “Scalable Oversight”), and independent plans written by Sam Bowman (an AI safety manager at Anthropic), Joshua Clymer (a researcher at Redwood Research), and Marius Hobbhahn (CEO of Apollo Research).
There are various reasons why alignment bootstrapping could fail1 even if implemented well, and some of those plans acknowledge this. But I’m also concerned about whether alignment bootstrapping will be implemented at all.
When the time comes, will AI companies actually spend their resources on alignment bootstrapping?
When AI companies have human-level AI systems, will they use them for alignment research, or will they use them (mostly) to advance capabilities instead?
Continue reading