NumberWangMan

I have thought about whether banning advertising would be a good idea prior to stumbling onto this article. I'm not saying there would be no downsides, but I think there would be a TON of benefits as well.

Consider that advertising is mostly (not 100%) a zero-sum game. It's not zero sum when it helps to inform people of products and services that would make their life better, that they would willingly have sought out and purchased if not for their lack of knowledge that the product existed.

However, there are lots of extremely common situations where advertising is just a net drain on society:

* when it encourages people to buy things they don't need, exploiting our monkey brains' desire for the seratonin that accompanies buying stuff.

* when everyone already knows what's out there in the market, and it's just massive empires fighting for market share, like coke and pepsi, or various car companies, trying to keep their products in people's minds. They're just playing tug-of-war and very little changes.

* again like with soda, or cigarettes, or vapes, or fast food and junk food, where the products being advertised are actually worse for your health than the default alternative (drinking tap water, not smoking, cooking food at home). Perhaps people enjoy these things, but there is a hedonic treadmill effect where you quickly get used to them and are no better off than if you just avoided them.

* when advertising makes public spaces less pleasant to be in. And when it's distracting to drivers, increasing the chances of an accident.

* when advertising makes websites hard to use

* when the advertising industry vacuums up tons of talented people with the attraction of the money they would make, who might otherwise have gone into careers that are more beneficial to the rest of society

I don't doubt that shills and astroturfing would still exist or possibly get worse if you did nothing about it -- but you could ban that too. You wouldn't catch everyone, but the threat of punishment would make it much less likely for people to be willing to participate in that sort of stuff.

I do think that we would need a replacement for the small, actual valuable thing that advertising provides, which is providing information. I think it would be great to allow sorts of "ad indexes" or "product indexes" which are websites specifically dedicated to aggregating information about all the products available in a given market. Maybe search engines are already good enough for this purpose. Honestly, when I want to learn about what's out there because I'm getting into a new hobby or something, I just do the google-reddit trick like searching for "reddit good value electronic piano" and reading about what other people like.

Likewise for politics, it would be fantastic if every election had a website where candidates could submit their policy platform and potentially a video or two (though I like the idea of JUST text for this) where you can read about them. It's hard enough to find out about candidates for local elections already.

So I'm very much in favor of trashing the whole thing. I think it's a case where advertising benefits those who do it (and in very rare cases, consumers) but mostly just has massive negative externalities. Classic case for either banning it, or putting a steep tax. Usually I'd prefer the latter (as in the case of carbon taxes), but I think taxing ads would be very complicated and the tax rate would probably instantly make most ads vanish anyway, so I think a ban makes more sense.

I think the whole problem with externalities is that even if everyone gains a private benefit from their choice, you can all be worse off due to the externalities.

To take your example, if you have a society of 30 people, each of whom drives, and gains +20 utility for driving, but -1 for each other car on the road, you get a net utility of -9 per person. But if any individual decides not to drive, their utility drops to -29, even as they provide a total benefit of +29 utility to everyone else by choosing not to drive.

It's obviously a lot more complicated than that. You have local externalities (noise, particulate pollution, health issues due to a more sedentary lifestyle, deaths and injuries due to accidents) and global ones (GHG emissions). Using public transport also subjects people to some negative externalities, if crime isn't controlled enough, or if people are noise. And you don't want a place that makes driving hard, but also has crappy public transit -- though usually, crappy public transit is a symptom of car-centric design, in my opinion.

But I think on balance, places where driving is discouraged in favor of other modes of transport are better off, and especially, a world where private automobiles are rarely used is better than a world where most everyone drives everywhere.

I believe that if you're doing some heavy chopping, that orientation keeps the cutting board in good condition for the longest time, as you're not cutting through the wood grain and taking chunks out of the board.

Separately I've heard that while bacteria can live in wood cutting boards, they tend to stay where they are rather than migrate out of the board and into the food -- but I can't back that up with any actual references.

My intuition, based on what I know of economics, is that a UBI policy would have results something like the following:

* Inflation, things get more expensive. People attempt to consume more, especially people with low income. * People can't consume more than is produced, so prices go up. * People who are above the break-even line (when you factor in the taxes) consume a bit less, or stay the same and just save less or reduce investments. * Producers, seeing higher prices, are incentivized to produce more. Increases in production tend to be concentrated toward the things that people who were previously very income-limited want to buy. I'd expect a good bit of that to be basic essentials, but of course it would include lots of different things. * The system reaches a new equilibrium, with the allocation of produced goods being a bit more aimed toward the things regular people want, and a bit less toward luxury goods for the wealthy. * Some people quit work to take care of their kids full-time. The change in wages of those who stay working depends heavily on how competitive their skills are -- some earn less, but with the UBI still win out. Some may actually get paid more even without counting the UBI, if a lot of workers in their industry have quit due to the UBI, and there's increased demand for the products. * Prices have risen, but not enough to cancel out one's additional UBI income entirely. It's very hard to say how much would be eaten up by inflation, but I'd expect it's not 10% or 90%, probably somewhere in between. Getting an accurate figure for that would take a lot of research and modeling.

Basically, I think it's complicated, with all the second and third-order effects, but I can't imagine a situation where so much of the UBI is captured by inflation that it makes it pointless. I do think that as a society, we should be morally responsible for people who can't earn a living for whatever reason, and I think UBI is a better system than a patchwork of various services with onerous requirements that people have to put a lot of effort into navigating, and where finding gainful employment will cause you to lose benefits.

I agree that all regulation is written in blood. But at the same time, regulation can result in bleeding, and we don't always carefully weigh the costs and benefits of regulation. There may be a law that saves 100 lives a year, but that indirectly causes 150 deaths due to knock-on effects.

It's not easy to inject nuance into a discussion that feels like you have millions of people on each side of a tug-of-war rope that goes from "MORE REGULATION" to "LESS REGULATION".

I think housing, which you mention, is an excellent example. Yes, we need regulation in housing because without it, people will die from shoddy structures collapsing on them, electrocution, gas leaks, etc. But at the same time, in the USA there are absolutely regulations in housing with very little benefit and absolutely massive costs, where we have examples of first-world countries without those regulations that do just fine. I'm talking about things like the requirement that all apartments have 2 stairwells. Or mandatory setbacks and minimum lot sizes and parking requirements. edit -- and of course zoning codes, where we've shifted the market toward building housing that's so big that people can only afford to share it with strangers. And while people used to live in crowded, cramped tenements, driving housing prices up by restricting supply leads to people living on the street.

In medicine, there are diminishing marginal returns to making doctors go through more schooling, and the cost is simply that fewer people choose to be doctors, and people just go without health care. And even within that simple dilemma of "should we make it harder or easier to be a doctor", i'm sure there is a universe of alternate ways to move the needle in different dimensions. Requiring more or less schooling, more or less time in residency, changing limits on the number of hours doctors and nurses can be scheduled in a week, tightening or loosening malpractice law in different ways, etc. Each of these has some positive and negative effects, and I'm sure we have a ways to go before we hit the optimal point. And even then, you have to choose how to balance quality of patient care against doctors and nurses quality of life!

Or take drug approvals. There are drugs in development that show lots of promise, that probably should be made available to people who are dying anyway and want to try them. The FDA does not allow that. We have to balance against companies trying to scam people with fake medicine. No policy is 100% without harm. I believe that, even for policies I strongly advocate.

Or laws that were originally targeted at local environmental protection, that are now being used by nearby residents to stop solar farms from being built, stopping us from reducing fossil fuel usage. Those regulations were written in the blood of wildlife -- and now they're cause much more harm than good to wildlife all across the world.

So if you are asking if we've deteriorated since The Jungle, in many ways, no, of course we've improved safety of working conditions massively, and lots of other things. But in other, important ways, we've gone somewhat backwards. I believe it's absolutely possible to improve our society by removing some regulations, but I think it takes a lot of careful, small, targeted tweaks, where we've carefully weighed the costs and benefits. Though in rare cases, like as in parking minimums, the evidence is that they are so harmful that just scrapping the regulation entirely is the way to go.*

I don't think that the scientific consensus on nutrition as unsettled as you say. As an example, there are a lot of people making money selling various diets as well as promoting uncertainty and doubt around the issue, but there seems to be pretty definitive evidence in favor of cholesterol and fat increasing cardiovascular disease risk. People love to misrepresent studies, or cherry-pick poorly designed studies, and use them to claim that the consensus is wrong.

I'm not talking about observational studies either, but actual controlled feeding trials where they put you on a strictly controlled diet for a period of time.

Even if you look at what humans are evolved to eat -- evolution puts selective pressure on reproductive fitness. As a process, it does not put any pressure on you to live a long time, as long as you reproduce successfully (which is why insects like the mayfly can even exist). So looking at what primitive people ate does not really give us information about what is healthy if you want to live a long time (aside from avoiding things that are obviously immediately poisonous).

Even hunter gatherer tribes that eat a meat-and-dairy-heavy diet like the Maasai have been examined and have pretty significant cardiovascular disease -- but they are also so ridiculously active their blood vessels are much wider than people with a modern sedentary lifestyle, and that mostly balances out the narrowing from arterial plaque. Native people who eat a traditional diet heavy in whole grains, legumes, and tubers for calories have them beat by a mile when it comes to arterial health.

Sure, but you still have to balance your "who benefits" against the harm of the thing they're proposing to ban.

In the case of these models, you can fine-tune the model all you want to be moral and not do harmful things like scam the elderly, carry out disinformation campaigns, harass people to the point of suicide. But as soon as you release the model weights, you are giving anyone the ability to fine-tune out all of those restrictions, with orders of magnitude less cost that it took to develop the model in the first place.

Regulating AI, especially as it becomes AGI and beyond, is going to be very tricky, and if everyone has the ability to create their own un-restricted, potentially sociopathic intelligences by tweaking the safe models created under careful conditions by big labs, we're in for a lot of trouble. That assumes we put the proper regulations on the big labs, and that they have the ability to make them "safe", which is hard, yes. But as AI turns into AGI and beyond, things are going to go pretty nuts, so it's important to start laying groundwork now.

I've heard it said that paying public servants well is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for avoiding corruption (this was as applied to Singapore). You don't want people trading power for money, and when you consider how much economic damage a corrupt person in a position of power can do, paying them well is really cheap.

Of course, it is best to couple the good pay with severe penalties for abusing power.

> how development of an unpredictable technology might pan out

> how one decision would pan out

I'm not sure what point you are making here. Are you trying to say "see, the AI not-kill-everyone-ists couldn't predict the future even in the short term, therefore we shouldn't put much credence into the the idea that the specific examples of AI doom they have given will happen"?

Or are you trying to imply that the idea of AI doom as a whole is bunk, because we can't predict the future... therefore everything will be fine...?

Everyone is better off if children don’t work, but if everyone else has their children work and you don’t, you lose. Sounds like moloch!

(I’m ignoring corporate profits and consumer prices for simplicity-but I think most of us would be happy if child labor was banned even if it meant higher prices)

I would say...not necessarily. The technology that lets someone create a gun does not give the ability to make bulletproof armor or the ability to treat life-threatening gunshot wounds. Or take nerve gases, as another example. It's entirely possible that we can learn how to make horrible pathogens without an equivalent means of curing them.

Yes, there is probably some overlap in our understanding of biology for disease and cure, but it is a mistake to assume that they will balance each other out.

The trick is to once every couple of days when it's starting to get to that point where it'll go bad soon, take it out, and re-cook it somehow to kill any bacteria. This could be tossing soup back on the stove, or microwaving veggies steaming hot.

Also, it helps a lot to have strict sanitary standards for yourself, like always using a clean, fresh utensil to scoop out your servings. Or if you use the same one, start from the most-recently cooked food and end at the oldest, so you're not potentially introducing bacteria or mold from older stuff into newer stuff.

I eat leftovers sometimes up to maybe 10 days at max, but I am pretty good at avoiding any issues from it.

Zvi Mowshowitz has a nuanced viewpoint I like -- we should be very careful and move very slowly with any tech that has a chance of wiping out humanity, and embrace the "move fast and break things" attitude with everything else, e.g. make it much easier to build housing, review and scrap any licensing requirements that do more harm than good, etc.

We need more people to say this out loud, so thank you…

There absolutely could be (profit I mean), if we taxed fossil fuels enough.

It’s multipolar trap/ coordination problem. The costs of carbon emissions are diffuse and borne by everyone, while the costs of changing your behavior are mostly borne by you. It’s just a sad fact of life, and to solve it the only feasible way is to change the rules to making decarbonizing cheaper than continuing to use fossil fuels.

This is the best argument I've heard against billionaires--one I had never heard before: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/billionaires-surplus-and-re....

I think most arguments for/against the existence of people with such wealth are basically capitalists saying they deserve it for creating value or that we need to incentivize wealth creation, and socialists arguing past them saying that it's just wrong for anyone to have so much more than anyone else.

This is the first time I've heard anyone making a good argument that actually, even IF you are a staunch capitalist, and you only consider people who made their money without leaning on government to bend the rules in their favor, maybe billionaires don't deserve all their wealth.

This is called a multipolar trap. “If I don’t build it, someone else will, so I might as well cash in”

It is for now, but rest assured that people will be working very hard on fixing that problem. I don’t doubt they will succeed.

Yep, and that’s rather terrifying, is it not? Is there any good reason to assume that future AGI will share our sense of morality, once it is smart enough to surpass human thought?

The only way AIs won’t reach the point of being better than humans is if we intentionally stop, I fear. Once an AI is trained, you can copy it a million times over. A human takes many years to learn a skill to the point of mastery.

Surely there are limits. But it matters a LOT how far away they are. Anyone betting on humanity hitting limits to its exponential growth would have been unpleasantly surprised many times. And if you talk about how much we're changing the earth as opposed to how many people there are, we're still going strong.

> If you step way back, the simple fact that the Earth still exists in its current form tells us that no recursive process in the multi-billion-year history of the planet has ever spiraled completely out of control; some limit has always been reached.

I dunno, I mean, humanity has made some serious changes in a very short time. We're pretty lucky that the climate's sensitivity to CO2 isn't worse than it is, or we could have taken ourselves out already. Same as if we had had a nuclear war.

And AGI doesn't need to completely destroy the earth to be really bad for humans. Just taking over a lot of the resources we need would do the trick.

> It’s conceivable that some sort of complexity principle makes it increasingly difficult to increase raw intelligence much beyond the human level, as the number of facts to keep in mind and the subtlety of the connections to be made increases.

There's a whole lot of "it's conceivable" in here, which seems to me to be a bit of a coping strategy. For humans, the problem with our biology is that our heads kinda have a physical limit on their size.

The idea that not only is it possible to make machines that are stronger than us, tougher than us, more precise than us, and faster than us, but also just straight up smarter than us in the general sense (instead of just at math or chess or whatever), is not outlandish at all. They might be less efficient and take a whole lot more power, but that sort of thing hasn't stopped us before. We just find ways to get them more power. I accused the author of trying to cope with fear of the development of super-intelligence by figuring out happy scenarios where it will be harder than we think to create. I have done the same thing, but I think we do ourselves a disservice by not facing the potential for this to be a real problem head-on.

This is also, I believe, why so many are cavalier about the difficulty of avoiding catastrophic outcomes after inventing general artificial intelligence. We are really good at lying to ourselves. I fear this will be the last time.

Yep. Pets, or just one of many biological species that go extinct as more and more resources are taken up by AGIs doing what they want to do, remaking the planet to be more suitable for themselves and not terribly caring if it becomes less hospitable for us.

I expect that AGI is probably between 2 and 6 years away, with super-intelligence a year or two after that, if we don't make a concerted and coordinated effort to restrict access to computing power. So much of our brains are taken up with things like processing visual, auditory, and sensory input, muscle control, emotions, etc. To have a consciousness, you don't need as much processing power as we have -- which is a lot, but we're rapidly approaching it.

I think there’s going to be a point where we need to slow a AI way, way down in order to avoid bad outcomes. I’m with Zvi Mowshowitz here: we should encourage progress and risk taking in every area except those where there are extinction risks. Applying today’s LLMs to all sorts of problems won’t end us. But I think we may only be a few years away from AGI that is conscious and can plan, and we don’t know the upper limit of how smart we’ll be able to make them.

And I think that we have a responsibility to any intelligent being we bring into the world. Some lament that there’s no test to become a parent-what about creating a million copies of a new virtual brain from scratch? And basically so they can be born into lifelong servitude.

There's a part of me that feels the urge to prepare for disaster. And yet I know it's a reaction to fears I have that won't be helped by being prepared. My main concern is that one of many possible AGI disasters will come to pass. None of them are really solved by prepping. But I can speak to this being driven by fear, at least for myself.

To be honest, I have fantasies -- but they are fantasies of a simpler life without all the craziness of the world. Or rather, if I had to spend all my time getting food and staying alive for the next few days, I wouldn't have a lot of mental energy to worry about all the ways that things could go really badly that I don't have any control over.

I don't know. I don't think anyone is directly programming GPT-4 to behave in any way, they're just training it to give the responses they want, and it learns. Something inside it seems to be figuring out some way of representing confidence in its own answers, and reacting in the appropriate way, or perhaps it is checking its own reasoning. I don't think anyone really knows at this point.