I've noticed many right-leaning tech types give quite a lot of lip service to free speech when it's about someone getting banned from a mailing list for being an asshole, and not so much when it's the government quashing protest against genocide. I'll personally always defend the idea of free speech, no matter the side.
>I'll personally always defend the idea of free speech, no matter the side.
You attacked the idea of free speech for the other side in the same comment where you said this. I would assume based on reference to government infringements that you're referring to the first amendment as "free speech" if you hadn't specifically emphasized "idea"; conservatives have no real first amendment case, but they do get censored and suppressed by people with power. The idea of free speech is very much still in play when university admin cancels a guest speaker or a forum moderator only allows left-wing or non-political posts. What am I missing here?
No? I would defend the first example too, which is why I specified the idea rather than the letter (the 1A). Is it so rare to see someone who genuinely cares about this stuff, not just for those who agree with me? That I think they're an asshole is irrelevant.
Oh, sorry, I misunderstood you. If someone is being an asshole on a mailing list, I don't think it's a free speech issue to remove them, and I took that example in context to mean you were saying all conservative gripes were non-issues like that.
>Is it so rare to see someone who genuinely cares about this stuff, not just for those who agree with me?
Yes, absolutely. I can name maybe 8, including the both of us.
I did. I believe this sort of stuff to be, at least morally, a violation of the 4A. It's no secret that the anti-Israel protests have gotten an inordinate amount of attention from the law relative to any harm caused, and overstepping bounds like this even to catch actual criminals (as happened here) isn't worth the price paid in liberty.
My comment was targeted at the government/ICE's notorious targeting of anti-Israel protesters broadly. It's absolutely clear that we're giving up rights left and right for this total farce, the same way we did for 9/11. It is imperative to the survival of liberal democracy that this ceases.
Everybody feels the need to defend government overreach when it’s in their favour. The most famous example is any non-libertarian political leaning with free speech, but it was the same deal with the “left” complaining about Chevron v. USA being overturned when their guy was in power.
Yes, this has little to nothing to do with borrow checking or memory/concurrency safety in the sense of Rust. Uncharitably, the author appears not to have a solid technical grasp of what they're writing about, and I'm not sure what this says about the rest of the language.
I'm not a China defender, but sidelining the concerns and needs of its citizens isn't why China is able to do things like high speed rail or build high density infrastructure in general. Lots there view having their property taken by the government and relocated as a good thing, because it almost always happens way above market rates. There are exceptions, of course, but my impression is that it is not the norm. Feel free to correct me. This isn't a defense of China in general, but it is totally possible to have good public transit in the United States.
And mind you that China isn't unique in bootstrapping its industrial revolution by mass theft of IP. If I were you, I'd look into the stunts us Americans pulled during our industrialization. The sad fact of the matter is that the government of this country no longer works for its own people, and that's why so many things are far below par. For many things, we _could_, but simply _don't_.
In my personal experience with in-laws in China you're correct (got fully compensated + given a nicer house). Another family, when they were laid off from their government jobs, were given the option of cash or office space and storage for like 30yrs to run their own business...
Nothing really to disagree with here tbh; I didn't mean to say that authoritarianism was the reason for everything they've achieved, but rather that it greases the wheels so to speak.
I was really just responding to the discussion that ensued when an earlier commenter said that poor regulation was not the reason the US modernised rapidly but rather population growth and post war economics, and another responded with China as a counter example to that, my point being that China's situation was much different than the US so it's not really a useful comparison.
I always liked the bit where they often compensate folks not directly financially but rather with a generous share in what they are building. Eg. the building containing your one bedroom apartment gets torn down by developers and as compensation they offer you a three bedroom apartment in the new building.
Definitely plays an interesting role in combating/moderating NIMBYism.
I like Gnome. I prefer my desktop to be designed around one unifying philosophy instead of a hodgepodge of customizations which don't work well together. The Gnome team has done pretty well at avoiding the classic Linux issues with the latter, though it doesn't win them any favors from people who would've been using KDE or some tiling WM anyway.
> I prefer my desktop to be designed around one unifying philosophy instead of a hodgepodge of customizations which don't work well together.
I agree. It's why I prefer Gnome over KDE, and macOS over Windows.
My main point is: Gnome can't tell simple from simplistic. Terminal cursor blinking. Removing every command until everything fits in one menu and/or title bar. It's so crammed with buttons, I can't tell what is what. But ironically, there's no desktop icons, despite "Desktop" folder being pinned in Nautilus. Everything is so spaced out. Top bar has three interactive elements, but it takes four clicks to log out. There's a dock, but you can't move it to the left/right side, so it takes up even more vertical space. You can fix some of that with extensions, but half of them get disabled on every upgrade.
This is in stark contrast with macOS. If you can't find something in the menu bar, there's a search field in the help menu. If you use some menu bar option often, you can bind it to a custom key. Both of these are provided through standard system APIs, so every application uses them by default. Title bars have buttons, but are spacious enough so that there's always an obvious place to click-to-drag. (Gnome had to solve it by making ordinary widgets draggable... How do you know if you're selecting text in a URL bar, or moving the window?) I could keep going, but macOS has always been more intuitive and more friendly to power users.
Seconded. GNOME is simple and cohesive. Sure, some of the apps are a bit feature light, but I do most of my heavy lifting in the terminal anyways - I really don't need my "core" GUI tools like the file explorer to do a whole lot.
He wants to reach as large an audience as possible, and being perfectly principled isn't the way to go. Self-hosted platforms are great if you want to preach to the choir.
I'm not saying there aren't benefits or that it doesn't work. Sometimes people have to buy self-help books about not shopping or eat more food to lose weight. It's still ironic.
> I'm not interested in what "PL (programming language) people" have to say about it. They dislike all generic/parametric polymorphism implementations except their pet language that no one uses.
That's strange. I seem to recall the PL community invented the generics system for Java [0,1]. Actually, I'm pretty sure Philip Wadler had to show them how to work out contravariance correctly. And topically to this thread, Rob Pike asked for his help again designing the generics system for Go [2,3]. A number of mistakes under consideration were curtailed as a result, detailed in that LWN article.
There are countless other examples, so can you elaborate on what you're talking about? Because essentially all meaningful progress on programming languages (yes, including the ones you use) was achieved, or at least fundamentally enabled, by "PL people".
Wow, my first ever video on AI! I'm rather disappointed. That was devoid of meaningful content save for the two minutes where they went over the Anthropic blog post on how LLMs (don't) do addition. Importantly, they didn't remotely approach what those other papers are about, or why thinking tokens aren't important for chain-of-thought. Is all AI content this kind of slop? Sorry, no offense to the above comment, it was just a total waste of 10 minutes that I'm not used to.
So, to anyone more knowledgeable than the proprietor of that channel: can you outline why it's possible to replace thinking tokens with garbage without a decline in output quality?
edit: Section J of the first paper seems to offer some succint explanations.
The video is just an entertaining overview, as indicated, I'm not the author of the video, it wasn't meant to be a deep dive. I linked the three related papers directly in there. I don't know how much more you are expecting from a HN comment, but this was a point in the right direction, not the definitive guide on the matter. This is a you problem.
An overview of what? It's entertaining to me when I come away understanding something more than I did before. I expected a high level explanation of the papers, or the faintest intuition behind the phenomenon your comment talked about.
If you watched the video, it doesn't actually say anything besides restating variants of "thinking tokens aren't important" in a few different ways, summarizing a distantly related blog post, and entertaining some wild hypotheses about the future of LLMs. It's unclear if the producer has any deeper understanding of the subject; it honestly sounded like some low grade LLM generated fluff. I'm simply not used to that level of lack-of-substance. It wasn't a personal attack against you, as indicated.
The EA community is generally incapable of self-awareness. The academic-but-totally-misinformed tone is comparable to reading LLM output. I've stopped trying to correct them, it's too much work on my part and not enough on theirs.
Effective Altruism is such an interesting title. Almost no one views their Altruism as ineffective. The differentiator is what makes their flavor of Altruism effective, but that's not in the title. It would be like calling the movement "real Altruism" or "good Altruism".
A good name might be rational Altruism because in practice these people are from the rationalist movement and doing Altruism, or what they feel is Altruism. But the "rationalist" title suffers from similar problems.
I suppose in the beginning, it was about finding ways to measure how effective different altruistic approaches actually are and focusing your efforts on the most effective ones. Effective then essentially means how much impact you are achieving per dollar spent. One of the more convincing ways of doing this is looking at different charitable foundations and determining how much of each dollar you donate to them actually ends up being used to fix some problem and how much ends up being absorbed by the charitable foundation itself (salaries etc.) with nothing to show for it.
They might have lost the plot somewhere along the line, but the effective altruism movement had some good ideas.
> One of the more convincing ways of doing this is looking at different charitable foundations and determining how much of each dollar you donate to them actually ends up being used to fix some problem and how much ends up being absorbed by the charitable foundation itself (salaries etc.) with nothing to show for it.
Color me unconvinced. This will work for some situations. At this point, it's well known enough that it's a target that has ceased to be a good measure (Goodhart's Law).
The usual way to look at this is to look at the percentage of donations spent on administrative costs. This makes two large assumptions: (1) administrative costs have zero benefit, and (2) non-administrative costs have 100% benefit. Both are wildly wrong.
A simple counterexample: you're going to solve hunger. So you take donations, skim 0.0000001% off the top for your time because "I'm maximizing benefit, baby!", and use the rest to purchase bananas. You dump those bananas in a pile in the middle of a homeless encampment.
There are so many problems with this, but I'll stick with the simplest: in 2 weeks, you have a pile of rotten bananas and everyone is starving again. It would have been better to store some of the bananas and give them out over time, which requires space and maybe even cooling to hold inventory, which cost money, and that's money that is not directly fixing the problem.
There are so many examples of feel-good world saving that end up destroying communities and cultures, fostering dependence, promoting corruption, propping up the institutions that causing the problem, etc.
Another analogy: you make a billion dollars and put it in a trust for your grandchild to inherit the full sum when they turn 16. Your efficiency measure is at 100%! What could possibly go wrong? Could someone improve the outcome by, you know, administering the trust for you?
Smart administration can (but does not have to) increase effectiveness. Using this magical "how much of each dollar... ends up being used to fix some problem" metric is going to encourage ineffective charities and deceptive accounting.
That's fair enough, there are problems with this way of thinking. I suppose you could say the take-away should be "Don't donate to charities where close to your whole donation will be absorbed as administrative costs". There definitely are black sheep that act this way and they probably served as the original motivation for EA. It's a logical next step to come up with a way to systematically identify these black sheep. That is probably the point where this approach should have stopped.
The vast majority of non-EA charity givers to not expend effort on trying to find the most dollar efficient charities (or indeed pushing for quantification at all), which makes their altruism ineffectual in a world with strong competition between charities (where the winners are inevitably those who spend the most on acquiring donations).
>Almost no one views their Altruism as ineffective
As someone who has occasionally given money to charities for homelessness and the like I don't really expect it to fix much. More the thought that counts.
Do you really think all altruism is effective? Caring about the immediate well-being of others is not as effective as thinking in the long term. The altruism you are describing is misguided altruism, which ultimately hurts more than it helps, while effective altruism goes beyond the surface-level help in ways that don't enable self-destructing behaviours or that don't perpetuate the problem.
No I think almost all people doing altruism at least think what they are doing is effective. I totally get that they EA people believe they have found the one true way but so does do others. Even if EA is correct it just makes talking about it confusing. Imagine if Darwin has called his theory "correct biology".
Technically lesswrong is about rationalists not effective altruists, but you're right in a sense that it's the same breed.
They think that the key to scientific thinking is to forego the moral limitations, not to study and learn. As soon as you're free from the shackles of tradition you become 100% rational and therefore 100% correct.
Approximately no one in the community thinks this. If you can go two days in a rationalist space without hearing about "Chesterton's Fence", I'll be impressed. No one thinks they're 100% rational nor that this is a reasonable aspiration. Traditions are generally regarded as sufficiently important that a not small amount of effort has gone into trying to build new ones. Not only is the case that no one thinks that anyone including themselves is 100% correct, but the community norm is to express credence in probabilities and convert those probabilities into bets when possible. People in the rationalist community constantly, loudly, and proudly disagree with each other, to the point that this can make it difficult to coordinate on anything. And everyone is obsessed with studying and learning, and constantly trying to come up with ways to do this more effectively.
Like, I'm sure there are people who approximately match the description you're giving here. But I've spent a lot of time around flesh-and-blood rationalists and EAs, and they violently diverge from the account you give here.
So much vitriol. I understand it's cool to hate on EA after the SBF fiasco, but this is just smearing.
The key to scientific thinking is empiricism and rationalism. Some people in EA and lesswrong extend this to moral reasoning, but utilitarianism is not a pillar of these communities.
Empiricism and rationalism both tempered by a heavy dose of skepticism.
On the other hand, maybe that is some kind of fallacy itself. I almost want to say that "scientific thinking" should be called something else. The main issue being the lack of experiment. Using the word "science" without experiment leads to all sorts of nonsense.
A word that means "scientific thinking is much as possible without experiment" would at least embedded a dose of skepticism in the process.
The Achilles heel of rationalism is the descent into modeling complete nonsense. I should give lesswrong another chance I suppose because that would sum up my experience so far, empirically.
EA to me seems like obvious self serving nonsense. Hiding something in the obvious to avoid detection.
That community is basically the "r/iamverysmart" types bringing their baggage into adulthood. Almost everything I've read in that sphere is basically Dunning–Kruger to the nth degree.
Note that these people often condescendingly refer to themselves as "rationalists," as if they've unlocked some higher level of intellectual enlightenment which the rest of us are incapable of achieving.
In reality, they're simply lay people who synthesize a lot of garbage they find on the Internet into overly verbose pseudo-intellectual blog posts filled with both the factual inaccuracies of their source material and new factual inaccuracies that they invent from whole cloth.
An absolutely terrible and tone-deaf way to phrase that thought, but the fact of the matter is that most of the world (you and I included, in all likelihood) will not get access to this sort of thing in our lifetimes. Not because modern medicine won't have been there yet, but because our lives (and those of our children) are simply seen as being worth significantly less than a rich person's desire to become richer.
How many people can even afford to get multiple opinions for a weird lump on their back? Or go to the dentist for a strange toothache? How many people can afford to get consistent exercise and eat healthy? How many lives would be saved or at least massively bettered? We already have the means to extend the life expectancy of the average person, and it's not being used. Obviously this is a wonderful medical advance, but it's depressing to wonder who it's for.
> An absolutely terrible and tone-deaf way to phrase that thought, but the fact of the matter is that most of the world (you and I included, in all likelihood) will not get access to this sort of thing in our lifetimes. Not because modern medicine won't have been there yet, but because our lives (and those of our children) are simply seen as being worth significantly less than a rich person's desire to become richer.
I'm as negative about the rich and powerful as anyone but this is such a cynical take - that might have been applied to many medical treatments in the past that have become relatively commonplace and easily accessible to people of all classes, at least in sane countries with sane healthcare systems.
Indeed, my view is heavily American-centric. And the trends of the past-- which you're right about-- may not apply to the future given increasing wealth inequality, the cost-of-living crisis, and the climate crisis (for which undoubtedly the poorest of us will be forced to shoulder most of the burden).
I'm explicitly not saying this work shouldn't be done, it should! But it does not exist in a vacuum, and it would be silly to pretend that it is not colored by vastly unequal access to modern healthcare. The reason I get excited about technology is because of the potential it holds for making us all happier and freer to do the things we like for longer. We are lost if we do not at least speak about the thunderclouds on the horizon for this philosophy of technology.
What are you talking about? Since the 1800s people have been shipping vaccines to "most of the world"
Everyone could afford to "eat healthy" and get exercise if governments and social planners put in a modicum of effort. Unfortunately they aren't directly incentives to do so.
Framing either of these things as a wealth issue ignores both how wealthy even the poorest in the world are and the systems responsible for the problem. For everything else there's health insurance, yet another horribly mismanaged system.
Certainly, you may choose to conduct yourself like this. I won't stop you! And other people who might've otherwise seen your point will be turned away from it. I prefer to have constructive conversations with people I view as equals, not stupid or infantile.
Observe that the replies to my post do engage with the argument I made.
I'm guessing they relied on an LLM response. That was my thought, and having tried it they indeed generate lots of garbage for this topic. I got a ChatGPT A/B test for this and both options were incorrect (one obviously and the other subtly, due to misinterpreting a bond rating page's discussion of the PUF and just blindly regurgitating the number from there).
