Awww lolol making a bunch of roko-basilisk variations could be fun. You could imagine an anti-basilisk that punishes people for spreading the idea of the basilisk and bringing them into existence and so on.
Serious talk though, Newcomb’s Paradox isn’t enough justification for decision theories along the lines of “timeless decision theory” (or the original source EY cribbed it from, Douglas Hofstadter’s superrationality) because if you are positing agents that can perfectly predict your actions and arbitrary game-theoretic agents, you can construct games in which timeless decision theory actually performs worse.
Example? Would you say the same about evidential decision theory? Evidential decision theory seems to me like the simplest way to deal with Newcomb type situations, and I don't buy Yudkowsky's arguments for its supposed flaws.
If you are allowing for arbitrary agents that can predict your players actions and set up the awards (as Newcomb’s problem basically does), then you can just have your predictors that directly punish players that try to meta-game. To give a trivial example, consider a game where there is one box, Box A, that contains $1000 if the predictor predicts that you would two box on Newcomb’s paradox and contains $0 if the predictor predicts you would one box.
This may sound like a deliberately malicious example, but the predictor agent only has the exact same predictive power that the standard Newcomb’s paradox predictor agent has, and the game is the same as in Newcomb’s paradox just with one box deleted (making it even simpler). And Newcomb’s paradox was invented to try to show the flaws/disagreements in the strategic dominance principle vs. expected utility, so I think it’s fair to invent a game showing the flaws in one-boxing theories like evidential theory and “updateless decision theory”… although actually if Yudkowsky gave a rigorous definition to of how to implement a “best probability distribution across world histories”, enough counter-factual interactions with my malicious example would make it a two boxer… and since my malicious example is strictly simpler (and thus given a higher prior according to rules like kolomorgov complexity), maybe updateless decision theory is actually a two boxer (wouldn’t that be ironic)?
In the real world, perfect predictors don’t exist, but if they did, you could study there behavior and see if they tended to more often reward one-boxing decision theories or two boxing theories in their meta-behavior. My gut intuition actually agrees with Yudkowsky that one-boxing might be the better way of doing things… but I won’t pretend my gut intuition is the result of some vastly better decision theory or base an entire ideology on it.
Oh and lesswrong already came up with a different example that timeless decision theory performs worse on: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mg6jDEuQEjBGtibX7/counterfactual-mugging
But of course… as soon as you start to seriously consider agents that can perfectly simulate you, you go down a rabbit hole of weird counterfactuals and hypotheticals: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/beqq5Nm3EsJihHvK7/precommitting-to-paying-omega
I guess it depends on what we consider a valid "test" of causal vs. evidential decision theory. Someone could just hand you a survey asking which you prefer, without telling you there will be any possible rewards, but with the plan in mind to give you $1000 if you answer "causal" and nothing if you answer "evidential"--would this count as a test of causal vs. evidential where causal performs better? You can define it as such if you like, but I suspect most philosophers wouldn't. It seems like a real test should involve being told in advance about the details of the test and the reward conditions, and only then having to decide whether to use causal or evidential decision theory (or timeless if you think it gives different council than evidential, though I don't believe it does) in order to tell you what option to select on the test.
>In the real world, perfect predictors don’t exist, but if they did, you could study there behavior and see if they tended to more often reward one-boxing decision theories or two boxing theories in their meta-behavior.
In the present this kind of prediction isn't possible, but it may still be interesting as a thought-experiment to consider a scenario where the agent is an intelligent human-like AI (a mind upload, say) and the predictor can just run multiple copies of the agent, and use the choices of the first copy to determine the rewards of all the later copies.
>Oh and lesswrong already came up with a different example that timeless decision theory performs worse on
For counterfactual mugging, consider the thought-experiment where you are a mind upload living in a simulated world and Omega creates a huge number of exact copies of you, then in each simulation uses a true random number generator to decide whether the coin comes up heads or tails, so about half the copies hear Omega say the coin came up heads in their case, about half tails. In this case, if he tells you the coin came up tails, the "optimal" strategy depends on whether you want to optimize expected returns only for the set of copies whose experience is identical to yourself up to this very moment, or whether you are more "altruistic" and want to optimize expected returns for all copies created in this experiment, including those whose experience diverged from yours a few seconds earlier when they heard Omega say the coin came up heads. Evidential decision theory doesn't tell you which of these you *should* opt for, but once you have decided what set of "you's" you want to maximize expected returns for, it does give the correct strategy given that preference: if you just want to optimize things for the "you's" who heard the coin turned up tails you shouldn't give up the $100, if you want to optimize things for all copies in this experiment you should fork it over.
Tbh you could pretty easily bring that into the decision theory (“decision theory”) behind the original basilisk just by stipulating that absent knowledge of the basilisk that basilisk-world (or basilisk-equivalent world) would come about without the necessary suffering implied by the basilisk, I mean there’d be some obvious kinks to work out, but it isn’t that far-fetched given the bareness of the original idea
You see, it’s worth the attempt because even if the odds are low, it
only takes 6 months off between jobs to try, and the 00,000+ salary you
can pull at those jobs means it barely hits your earnings.
Do you think the guy consciously decided his blog is just for Bay
area software engineers in their 20s, or thinks he’s giving universal
advice? And which would be worse?
"What does it really take to start an AI startup? A laptop, free wifi, access to some open coursewhere and some AWS credits?"
In the echo chamber of STEM-nerdery, the locker is the entire universe.
I mean he’s not completely wrong. Obviously it’s a game of musical chairs, but there’s still some room.
I can think of few better audiences for this message than the high IQ, low income crowd of Sneerclub.
You don’t have to start a company either if you’re risk averse. Just join one that is on track to IPO.
Not being in a tech company is like playing Russian Roulette with every chamber loaded.
If more people move into tech, the supernormal profits will equilibrate. The market is screaming at you. Will you listen or spend your life claiming the system is rigged against you?
Conceding what point? I have no interest in working in tech, don’t live in a country where working in tech is the main game in town to make money, and have better careers at my disposal if I so choose. Your post history makes it look a lot like you’re here so you can bully people into pursuing your chosen career.
It also just assumes tech companies make you rich via an ipo as an employee, far from a given. Really weird poster.
E: even better is that the post we are reacting to is saying 'just exploit tech workers, it is fine to abuse the middle class', providing a nice counter argument why his whole 'just join tech ipo' isnt that simple.
Im reminded of stories I heard about the US and how successful lawyers said to young people 'just become a lawyer you will always make money', just before automation automated a lot of those jobs away.
E2: "your atoms could be used better as part of computanium for the acausalrobotgod"
"But I dont want to be part of the acausalrobotgod"
"Thanks for conceding the point."
I’m glad you brought up how “weird” the posting is, with respect to IPOs etc. Because I was minded to tell the story of a similar type of bullying tech-bro guy who thought he was hot shit that I occasionally got into arguments with on reddit (long story). Long story short the last time I checked on him he was still trying to talk up his “tech is the future you idiots” schtick at the same time as asking how best to set up a “minimalist” company from a cheap camper van he’d bought, and asking for relationship advice on how to go long distance with some “hot chick” or whatever that he’d picked up along the way.
Says it all really, doesn’t it?
Yeah there is this weird aspirational (not sure if that is the right word) undertone in tech. If you just do the right things you will be happy and unburdoned forever. And there are various strands of it pushed by people who got past the survivorship bias of their strand.
[Digital nomads](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_nomad) are one of those groups. ( notable nomad : tim ferris, which shows, want to get rich, sell shovels). (Also iirc lost of 'just exploit poorer workers' in those communities (and a lot of privilege), the final trick capitalism is pulling, you too can become rich and part of the elite just give up having a home)
But if it makes them happy and pays/avoids the rent good for them, at least I hope it does these things.
Well my point was more that the asshole I was mentioning clearly hadn’t made it as good as he thought he’d done, and was trying to pull off the “digital nomad” thing *after* clearly fucking up what he thought was a great deal for himself
So many people in that crowd think that they can win against the house every time, and refuse to admit when they’re dealt a losing hand
That makes it extra sad. At least he has a girlfriend he thinks is hot right? Right? ;)
And I wonder why, the refusing to admit, it can't be all just 'admitting they were dealt a bad hand means they need to reevaluate their stance on capitalism' right? (ow god, I need to stop saying/thinking about 'capitalism bad').
It’s not just capitalism, people forget that even in the classical Marxist interpretation of “capitalism” there’s all sorts of room for human folly way above and beyond the historical contingencies of living in a capitalist system/world: capitalism is bad, sure, but bravado and unwarranted self-assurance can truck along on all on their own without it
Humans are limited animals with eyes bigger than their stomachs with or without capitalism, and that’s about it
Yeah, capitalism is just the current big bad that is fucking things up, I often think that the big problem is more caused by a lot of power ending up in the hands of a limited few people, people who then only look out for the interests of the 'ingroup', to use a popular term from the Rationalists. But this isn't a big new insight or something.
I guess the whole exxon leaks, and that nobody seems to be talking about it is kinda getting to me. 'ow yeah we manipulated the democrats to go for policies which would never get passed just so we could keep burning oil'.
And it isn't like we didn't do horrible things under mercantileism.
My graduate degree would have made me $55,000/year starting. I think Applied Divinity Studies is pointing people in the right direction. Even if you don’t make billions, maybe you’ll “fail” at hundreds of millions.
If you can’t beat them, join them. OPs like this are just bitter.
This “bitter” thing is pure armchair psychoanalysis: explain your point with words and answer the question instead of hiding behind bloviating about making money.
The idea that not wanting to work in a specific industry constitutes "underutilized earning power and wasted human capital" -- or that those things are actually reasonable ways to frame human beings and their desires in the first place -- is a succinct illustration of everything that is wrong with you and with 21st century America.
I'm not taking advice from someone who's clearly as bad at math as you are. It's well known at this point that a FAANG job pays much better than startups.
Gotta admit, I was impressed with the way dude pulled Newcomb’s
Paradox out of his ass when he ran out of anything any real person would
care about to say: what are we gonna do next, “An Introduction To The
Prisoner’s Dilemma for Wannabe Dorks”?
If you acknowledge that the life satisfaction/happiness log scale
with money, and you are the slightest bit utilitarian, then you should
strongly support extreme wealth redistribution because the marginal
happiness per dollar is much higher for the poor than the rich to a
ridiculous extent.
Of course this person doesn’t seem to care… they acknowledge this
point, and then press on anyway saying you could just become a
billionaire then donate to the poor. A more optimal strategy would be to
use your billions to overthrow capitalists governments and replace them
with ones that more optimally distribute wealth.
Some happiness is worth more than others. Oils ain't oils. Do you like malaria? Bill Gates is fighting malaria. You hate Bill Gates. You must want little kids to die of malaria.
Okay, time for the next question in my imagined dialogue:
>**peepee poopoo**
Ha, you fool, this is reducible to a Monty Hall paradox!
* Box A is clear, and always contains a goat
* Box B is opaque. You’ve been told it contains $1,000,000,000.
I wonder if there is anyone on Earth who might be induced by circumstance to take the goat.
Right, and it makes no acknowledgment that you obtain that wealth by capturing profit from others - and it's obvious that if you're a billionaire, you're going to be taking it from someone less wealthy than yourself.
Also, Bill Gates is a perfect example of how, even when billionaire are doing charity, they are still serving their own interests. He puts his money behind preserving the intellectual property of pharmaceutical companies, not making drugs as widely and cheaply available as possible.
According to the blog post author, as long as you are exploiting middle class tech workers and not the poor it’s perfectly fine to exploit people for economic gain:
> But what if you’re running a company that “exploits” wealthy tech workers, and the donate the proceeds to stop human trafficking? In some sense you are still guilty of capitalist exploitation, but it’s not a sense that matters.
And let’s drag in a nonsensical two boxing vs one boxing metaphor in just to make it clear:
> Box A is clear, and always contains $100,000
> Box B is opaque. You’ve been told it contains $1,000,000,000.
> Your choice is between taking Box A once a year, or spending, I don’t know, 6 months, to work on a startup, apply to Y Combinator and have a shot at Box B.
That right you are only 6 months away from being on the path to being a billionaire! Seriously this beyond parody…
And don’t worry about contributing to the world becoming a cyberpunk dystopia, as long as you are on top:
> If income inequality continues to increase, it’s even more important to make sure you’re part of the oligarchical class
It doesn’t matter if it is zero sum or positive sum. Unless the existence of billionaires is increasing productivity by billions of dollars in value and that increased value is distributed to the people who get the most utility out of it, it would be better to tax away those billions.
The notion that billionaires are just stealing the profit from poor labourers is archaic and wrong. To the contrary, they are usually creating massive wealth and even thousands of jobs for the rest of society. Redistributing all wealth like you propose would have serious second order effects on human prosperity
Famously, redistributing wealth makes it just vanish into thin air. Nothing else can be done with it! The only way to create jobs is to be a billionaire!
I imagine it depends on the sector. Like, our present wealth distribution to billionaires presumably props up the markets in mansions that will never be entered, cocaine, private islands to engage in sexual assault, fixers to cover up sex assaults, and wasteful ego projects. On the other hand, wealth distribution to the working class would presumably support markets in things like food, housing, medicine, and education for everyone. So it's kinda like, which industries should our society favor?
Similarly, when billionaires run their companies as little fiefdoms, it's tempting to say this tends to lead to vast mismanagement. But it really depends on whose perspective you take: like, from the perspective of the workers not losing their pensions, and the consumers getting reliable products? Sure, billionaires tend to vastly mismanage their companies. But from *the billionaires*' perspectives, they're doing just fine.
We're not just taking about redistribution though. But rather full equality of outcome as this would maximise the instantaneous utility of society. Don't think this has ever been tried, except perhaps some communist countries. Are you trying to make the argument that a bit of redistribution is good, therefore extreme redistribution must be extremely good? Some issues might be more complex than this linearity you're trying to impose
That was indeed the argument presented. Since people with more wealth derive less marginal utility from more money, there should be "extreme wealth redistribution"
Sure, it could also mean almost-full equality of outcome, but that wouldn't change much. But again, the entire argument was built upon the notion that we should redistribute wealth in an extreme manner because of diminishing marginal utility (to maximise the total utility of the society), and taking that logic to its conclusion would indeed mean full equality of outcome
The notion that 🤔😐 billionaires are just 👌 stealing 👏👏 the profit 💲 from 💥 poor 💸 labourers is archaic and wrong. ❌ To the contrary, they 💁 are usually creating massive 🌐 wealth and even 🌚 thousands of jobs for 4️⃣ the rest 💤 of society. 👥 Redistributing all 💯 wealth like 😄 you 👈 propose would 😏 have 👨💼 serious 😐 second 🥈 order 📑❌ effects on 👇😧👇 human 🚶♀️🚶♂️ prosperity
This is mostly a humor subreddit aimed at mocking utterly ridiculous points (just spend 6 months on a startup!), actual effort posts with real points buried in the mockery like my own show up occasionally but aren’t the primary point of this subreddit.
More seriously the dude is massively misunderstanding the world if he thinks he's competing with poor people, and that's 100% where his idea of what "rich" is comes from.
Let me plug in some example numbers to make it simple enough for you to understand…
To illustrate just what a log scale of money value might mean:
* a minimum wage worker gets +50 utility points per additional $1,000 they get
* a 6 figure tech worker gets +5 utility points per additional $1,000
* a multimillionaire CEO or tech company founder gets +.5 utility points per additional $1,000
* a billionaire titan of industry gets +.05 utility per additional $1,000
This mean every $1000 transferred from billionaire to minimum wage worker gains society a net +49.95 utility. Every $1000 transferred from a multimillionaire to minimum wage worker gains society a net +49.5 utility.
Note that even if the billionaires are spiteful Ayn Rand fanboys and refuse to be as productive when they are taxed… the math still works out in favor of heavy taxes on the billionaires. For instance, even if the billionaires perfectly pass on all of the tax losses to their tech workers, and reduce productivity by an amount equal to taxes and these losses are also passed off to tech workers, every $1000 dollars in tax is still a net gain of +40 utility (50-2x5). Even if the government perfectly wastes half of all money taxed, this is still a net utility gain of +15 (50x1/2-2x5).
Of course the log scaling can be a lot gentler than a 1/10 factor per wealth tier (but considering that $1000 can make or break homelessness for someone on the edge while Zuck spends hundreds on each custom tailored t-shirt he wears I don’t think my guesstimates are that far off)… but some measures of happiness actually have it entirely plateau past enough wealth. Either way the math works out in favor of very progressive tax schemes, with the exact levels depending on exactly how the marginal value of money drops.
I understand how logarithms work, no need to be condescending.
Using 10 as the base is also completely arbitrary and carefully selected to promote your argument. I would be interested if you could provide some evidence about how the marginal utility changes with wealth instead of just taking numbers from your ass that fit the narrative.
To be clear, I'm not against wealth redistribution. But don't think "extreme" wealth redistribution as you put it is a good idea.
You seem to just be discussing some increased taxation the billionaires are able to pass on their workers. This is not generally what is envisioned by extreme wealth redistribution. Extreme wealth distribution would rather refer to taxing the wealth directly in a manner that can't just be passed down. If you have 10 billion dollars in assets and in the name of extreme wealth distribution have to be taxed say 9.5 billion dollars (by your logic the optimal would be to tax 100% of the wealth and have everyone own the same wealth) how could you pass this on to your workers? And again it's very silly to look just at a single year when we want to optimise for maximum utility over time. The productivity lost continues indefinitely, and does not only affect the billionaires but also the thousands they employ, the utility of the products they supply etc. And you also seem to forget that upon such an extreme wealth redistribution programme, all the billionaires who currently provide a lot of taxation revenue would simply move away to a different country
> And you also seem to forget that upon such an extreme wealth redistribution programme, all the billionaires who currently provide a lot of taxation revenue would simply move away to a different country
Don’t be coy, call it “Capital Flight”, and it’s a highly contested assumption that capital flight would be a major factor in GDP growth for the average wealthy nation.
>[Billionaires] are **usually** creating massive wealth and even thousands of jobs for the rest of society
Many many many economists think that this idea is wrong and archaic. Many others - sometimes but not always the same people - think that to the contrary wealth inequality and slacks in (e.g.) productivity are genuinely linked, and this is in the mainstream, which is why wealth taxes and so on are increasingly popular amongst economists. The idea that billionaires are by and large extractive and inefficiently allocate capital is incredibly common in mainstream economics, in spite of the media legend of the 70s through 80s (and ever since) that wealth inequality doesn’t matter and that this is somehow proven dogma in economic science.
Or to continue abusing the Marxist jargon: We live in an
unprecedented time where more people than ever have access to the means
of production. What does it really take to start an AI startup? A
laptop, free wifi, access to some open coursewhere and some AWS credits?
That’s still some barrier to entry, but it’s easier than owning a
factory or being lucky enough to inherit generational wealth.
This fool isn’t worth a serious rebuttal but I can’t help myself.
Someone sneer at me to save me.
Uh…people actually have the least access to the means of production
ever, now that every square inch of this planet is ‘owned’ by someone. I
hate how much I talk about foragers sometimes, but back in the good old
hunter-gatherer days, everyone had a bow or digging stick and the
knowledge of local flora and fauna to support themselves.
Also, access to a good dataset and some serious hardware are
necessary if you want to do AI, and neither of those are cheap.
hmm it’s almost as if the people who are most motivated by money are
happier if they achieve it
was this written by a 14 year-old? it reeks of the same ineffectual
idealism of someone doing acid for the first time and thinking they have
reached a spiritual awakening
Roko’s New Basilisk is outr future billionaire selves punishing us for not trying hard enough to bring them into existence.
You see, it’s worth the attempt because even if the odds are low, it only takes 6 months off between jobs to try, and the 00,000+ salary you can pull at those jobs means it barely hits your earnings.
Do you think the guy consciously decided his blog is just for Bay area software engineers in their 20s, or thinks he’s giving universal advice? And which would be worse?
I’m curious why this guy is writing blog posts instead of being a tech billionaire then
Gotta admit, I was impressed with the way dude pulled Newcomb’s Paradox out of his ass when he ran out of anything any real person would care about to say: what are we gonna do next, “An Introduction To The Prisoner’s Dilemma for Wannabe Dorks”?
If you acknowledge that the life satisfaction/happiness log scale with money, and you are the slightest bit utilitarian, then you should strongly support extreme wealth redistribution because the marginal happiness per dollar is much higher for the poor than the rich to a ridiculous extent.
Of course this person doesn’t seem to care… they acknowledge this point, and then press on anyway saying you could just become a billionaire then donate to the poor. A more optimal strategy would be to use your billions to overthrow capitalists governments and replace them with ones that more optimally distribute wealth.
Is this satire? I genuinely can’t tell.
Life advice: win the lottery. Please like&subscribe, donate to my Patreon to get more great content.
This fool isn’t worth a serious rebuttal but I can’t help myself. Someone sneer at me to save me.
Uh…people actually have the least access to the means of production ever, now that every square inch of this planet is ‘owned’ by someone. I hate how much I talk about foragers sometimes, but back in the good old hunter-gatherer days, everyone had a bow or digging stick and the knowledge of local flora and fauna to support themselves.
Also, access to a good dataset and some serious hardware are necessary if you want to do AI, and neither of those are cheap.
The scientist has logged on
Life Advice: Become a King
Without reading the linked article, I would say that is good life advice.
hmm it’s almost as if the people who are most motivated by money are happier if they achieve it
was this written by a 14 year-old? it reeks of the same ineffectual idealism of someone doing acid for the first time and thinking they have reached a spiritual awakening