Increments

We make a guest appearance on Nick Anyos' podcast to talk about effective altruism, longtermism, and probability. Nick (very politely) pushes back on our anti-Bayesian credo, and we get deep into the weeds of probability and epistemology. You can find Nick's podcast on institutional design here, and his substack here. We discuss: The lack of feedback loops in longtermism Whether quantifying your beliefs is helpful Objective versus subjective knowledge The difference between prediction and explanation The difference between Bayesian epistemology and Bayesian statistics Statistical modelling and when statistics is useful Links Philosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics by Andrew Gelman and Cosma Shalizi EA forum post showing all forecasts beyond a year out are uncalibrated. Vaclav smil quote where he predicts a pandemic by 2021: The following realities indicate the imminence of the risk. The typical frequency of influenza pan- demics was once every 50–60 years between 1700 and 1889 (the longest known gap was 52 years, between the pandemics of 1729–1733 and 1781–1782) and only once every 10–40 years since 1889. The recurrence interval, calculated simply as the mean time elapsed between the last six known pandemics, is about 28 years, with the extremes of 6 and 53 years. Adding the mean and the highest interval to 1968 gives a span between 1996 and 2021. We are, probabilistically speaking, very much inside a high-risk zone. - Global Catastropes and Trends, p.46 Reference for Tetlock's superforecasters failing to predict the pandemic. "On February 20th, Tetlock’s superforecasters predicted only a 3% chance that there would be 200,000+ coronavirus cases a month later (there were)." Contact us Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Check us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Errata At the beginning of the episode Vaden says he hasn't been interviewed on another podcast before. He forgot his appearence on The Declaration Podcast in 2019, which will be appearing as a bonus episode on our feed in the coming weeks. Sick of hearing us talk about this subject? Understandable! Send topic suggestions over to incrementspodcast@gmail.com. Photo credit: James O’Brien for Quanta MagazineSupport Increments

We were delighted to be joined by Davis Professor at the Sante Fe Insitute, Melanie Mitchell! We chat about our understanding of artificial intelligence, human intelligence, and whether it's reasonable to expect us to be able to build sophisticated human-like automated systems anytime soon. Follow Melanie on twitter @MelMitchell1 and check out her website: https://melaniemitchell.me/ We discuss: AI hype through the ages How do we know if machines understand? Winograd schemas and the "WinoGrande" challenge. The importance of metaphor and analogies to intelligence The four fallacies in AI research: 1. Narrow intelligence is on a continuum with general intelligence 2. Easy things are easy and hard things are hard 3. The lure of wishful mnemonics 4. Intelligence is all in the brain Whether embodiment is necessary for true intelligence Douglas Hofstadter's views on AI Ray Kurzweil and the "singularity" The fact that Moore's law doesn't hold for software The difference between symbolic AI and machine learning What analogies have to teach us about human cognition Errata Ben mistakenly says that Eliezer Yudkowsky has bet that everyone will die by 2025. It's actually by 2030. You can find the details of the bet here: https://www.econlib.org/archives/2017/01/my_end-of-the-w.html. References: NY Times reporting on Perceptrons. The WinoGrande challenge paper Why AI is harder than we think The Singularity is Near, by Ray Kurzweil Contact us Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Check us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Eliezer was more scared than Douglas about AI, so he wrote a blog post about it. Who wrote the blog post, Eliezer or Douglas? Tell us at over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.Special Guest: Melanie Mitchell.Support Increments

Like moths to a flame, we come back to longtermism once again. But it's not our fault. Will MacAskill published a new book, What We Owe the Future, and billions (trillions!) of lives are at stake if we don't review it. Sisyphus had his task and we have ours. We're doing it for the (great great great ... great) grandchildren. We discuss: Whether longtermism is actionable Whether the book is a faithful representation of longtermism as practiced Why humans are actually cool, despite what you might hear Some cool ideas from the book including career advice and allowing vaccines on the free market Ben's love of charter cities and whether he's is a totalitarian at heart The plausability of "value lock-in" The bizarro world of population ethics References: "Bait-and-switch" critique from a longtermist blogger: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/9Y6Y6qoAigRC7A8eX/my-take-on-what-we-owe-the-future Quote: "For instance, I’m worried people will feel bait-and-switched if they get into EA via WWOTF then do an 80,000 Hours call or hang out around their EA university group and realize most people think AI risk is the biggest longtermist priority, many thinking this by a large margin." Contact us Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Check us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link How long is your termist? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com Support Increments

Some people think that advanced AI is going to kill everyone. Some people don't. Who to believe? Fortunately, Ben and Vaden are here to sort out the question once and for all. No need to think for yourselves after listening to this one, we've got you covered. We discuss: How well does math fit reality? Is that surprising? Should artificial general intelligence (AGI) be considered "a person"? How could AI possibly "go rogue?" Can we know if current AI systems are being creative? Is misplaced AI fear hampering progress? References: The Unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics Prohibition on autonomous weapons letter Google employee conversation with chat bot Gary marcus on the Turing test Melanie Mitchell essay. Did MIRI give up? Their (half-sarcastic?) death with dignity strategy Kerry Vaughan on slowing down AGI development. Contact us Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Check us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Which prompt would you send to GPT-3 in order to end the world? Tell us before you're turned into a paperclip over at incrementspodcast@gmail.comSupport Increments

Ben and Vaden sit down to discuss what is possibly Popper's most confusing essay ever: Language and the Body-Mind Problem: A restatement of Interactionism. Determinism, causality, language, bodies, minds, and Ferris Buhler. What's not to like! Except for the terrible writing, spanning the entire essay. And before we get to that, we revolutionize the peer-review system in less than 10 minutes. We discuss Problems with the current peer-review system and how to improve it The Mind-Body Problem How chaos theory relates to determinism The four functions of language Why you don't argue with thermometers Whether Popper thinks we can build AGI Why causality occurs at the level of ideas, not just of atoms References Link to the essay, which you should most definitely read for yourself. Ben's call to abolish peer-review Discrete Analysis Math Journal Pachinko Karl Buhler's theory of language Quotes This, I think, solves the so-called problem of 'other minds'. If we talk to other people, and especially if we argue with them, then we assume (sometimes mistakenly) that they also argue: that they speak intentionally about things, seriously wishing to solve a problem, and not merely behaving as if they were doing so. It has often been seen that language is a social affair and that solipsism, and doubts about the existence of other minds, become selfcontradictory if formulated in a language. We can put this now more clearly. In arguing with other people (a thing which we have learnt from other people), for example about other minds, we cannot but attribute to them intentions, and this means, mental states. We do not argue with a thermometer. - C&R, Chap 13 Once we understand the causal behaviour of the machine, we realize that its behaviour is purely expressive or symptomatic. For amusement we may continue to ask the machine questions, but we shall not seriously argue with it-- unless we believe that it transmits the arguments, both from a person and back to a person. - C&R, Chap 13 If the behaviour of such a machine becomes very much like that of a man, then we may mistakenly believe that the machine describes and argues; just as a man"who does not know the working of a phonograph or radio may mistakenly think that it describes and argues. Yet an analysis of its mechanism teaches us that nothing of this kind happens. The radio does not argue, although it expresses and signals. - C&R, Chap 13 It is true that the presence of Mike in my environment may be one of the physical 'causes' of my saying, 'Here is Mike'. But if I say, 'Should this be your argument, then it is contradictory', because I have grasped or realized that it is so, then there was no physical 'cause' analogous to Mike; I do not need to hear or see your words in order to realize that a certain theory (it does not matter whose) is contradictory. The analogy is not to Mike, but rather to my realization that Mike is here. - C&R, Chap 13 The fear of obscurantism (or of being judged an obscurantist) has prevented most anti-obscurantists from saying such things as these. But this fear has produced, in the end, only obscurantism of another kind. - C&R, Chap 13 When's the last time you argued with your thermometer? Tell us over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com Image Credit: http://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/modernlanguages/research/groups/linguistics/Support Increments

We're joined by the wonderful Lulie Tanett to talk about effective altruism, pulling spouses out of burning buildings, and why you should prefer critical rationalism to Bayesianism for your mom's sake. Buckle up! We discuss: Lulie's recent experience at EA Global Bayesianism and how it differs from critical rationalism Common arguments in favor of Bayesianism Taking Children Seriously What it was like for Lulie growing up without going to school The Alexander Technique, Internal Family Systems, Gendlin's Focusing, and Belief Reporting References EA Global Taking Children Seriously Alexander Technique Internal Family Systems Gendlin Focusing Social Media Everywhere Follow Lulie on Twitter @reasonisfun. Follow us at @VadenMasrani, @BennyChugg, @IncrementsPod, or on Youtube. Report your beliefs and focus your Gendlin's at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. Special Guest: Lulie Tanett.Support Increments

Is there any possibility of fruitful dialogue with your mildly crazy, significantly intoxicated uncle at Thanksgiving dinner? We turn to Karl Popper's essay, The Myth of the Framework, to find out. Popper argues that it's wrong to assume that fruitful conversation is only possible among those who share an underlying framework of beliefs and assumptions. In fact, there's more to learn in difficult conversations which lack such a framework. We discuss What is The Myth of the Framework? The relationship between the myth of the framework and epistemological and moral relativism Modern examples of the myth, including Jon Haidt's recent Atlantic essay and Paul Graham's Keep your identity small. Why there's more to learn from conversations where the participants disagree, and why conversations with too much agreement are uninteresting Linguistic relativism and the evolution of language as a refutation of the myth The relationship between the myth of the framework and the Enigma of Reason Quotes I think what religion and politics have in common is that they become part of people's identity, and people can never have a fruitful argument about something that's part of their identity. By definition they're partisan. - Paul Graham, Keep your identity small The story of Babel is the best metaphor I have found for what happened to America in the 2010s, and for the fractured country we now inhabit. Something went terribly wrong, very suddenly. We are disoriented, unable to speak the same language or recognize the same truth. We are cut off from one another and from the past. It’s been clear for quite a while now that red America and blue America are becoming like two different countries claiming the same territory, with two different versions of the Constitution, economics, and American history. But Babel is not a story about tribalism; it’s a story about the fragmentation of everything. It’s about the shattering of all that had seemed solid, the scattering of people who had been a community. It’s a metaphor for what is happening not only between red and blue, but within the left and within the right, as well as within universities, companies, professional associations, museums, and even families. - Jonathan Haidt, Why the past 10 years of American life have been uniquely stupid The proponents of relativism put before us standards of mutual understanding which are unrealistically high. And when we fail to meet these standards, they claim that understanding is impossible. - Karl Popper, MotF, pg. 34 The myth of the framework can be stated in one sentence, as follows. A rational and fruiful discussion is impossible unless the participants share a common framework of basic assumptions or, at least, unless they have agreed on such a framework for the purpose of the discussion. As I have formulated it here, the myth sounds like a sober statement, or like a sensible warning to which we ought to pay attention in order to further rational discussion. Some people even think that what I describe as a myth is a logical principle, or based on a logical principle. I think, on the contrary, that it is not only a false statement, but also a vicious statement which, if widely believed, must undermine the unity of mankind, and so must greatly increase the likelihood of violence and of war. This is the main reason why I want to combat it, and to refute it. - Karl Popper, MotF, pg. 34 Although I am an admirer of tradition, and conscious of its importance, I am, at the same time, an almost orthodox adherent of unorthodoxy: _I hold that orthodoxy is the death of knowledge, since the growth of knowledge depends entirely on the existence of disagreement. Admittedly, disagreement may lead to strif, and even to violence. And this, I think, is very bad indeed, for I abhor violence. Yet disagreement may also lead to discussion, to argument, and to mutual criticism. And these, I think, are of paramount importance. I suggest that the greatest step towards a better and more peaceful world was taken when the war of swords was first supported, and later sometimes even replaced, by a war of words. This is why my topic is of some practical significance._ - Karl Popper, MotF, pg. 34 My thesis is that logic neither underpins the myth of the framework nor its denial, but that we can try to learn from each other. Whether we succeed will depend largely on our goodwill, and to some extent also on our historical situation, and on our problem situation. - Karl Popper, MotF, pg. 38 References Why the past 10 years of American life have been uniquely stupid, by Jonathan Haidt Keep your identity small, by Paul Graham The Enigma of Reason by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber Glenn Loury and Briahna Joy Grey Normal Science and its Dangers Social media everywhere Follow us on twitter (@Incrementspod, @VadenMasrani, @BennyChugg), and on youtube. Tell us about your shaken framework at incrementspodcast@gmail.com Image: Cornelis Anthonisz (1505 – 1553) – The Fall of the Tower of Babel (1547)Support Increments

The most reasonable and well-reasoned discussion of reason you can be reasonably expected to hear. Today we talk about the book The Enigma of Reason by Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier. But first, get ready for dogs, modern art, and babies! *We discuss * Reason as a social phenomenon The two roles of reason: To justify our actions, and to evaluate the reasons of others Reason as module of inference, and how that contrasts with dual-process theories The "intellectualist" vs the "interactionist" approach to reason Nassim Taleb's notion of "skin in the game" The consequences of reason having evolved in a particular (social) niche The marshmallow test and other debunked psychological findings Quotes: The interactionist approach, on the other hand, makes two contrasting predictions. In the production of arguments, we should be biased and lazy; in the evaluation of arguments, we should be demanding and objective— demanding so as not to be deceived by poor or fallacious arguments into accepting false ideas, objective so as to be ready to revise our ideas when presented with good reasons why we should. EoR (pg. 332) In our interactionist approach, the normal conditions for the use of reasoning are social, and more specifically dialogic. Outside of this environment, there is no guarantee that reasoning acts for the benefits of the reasoner. It might lead to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This does not mean reasoning is broken, simply that it has been taken out of its normal conditions. EoR (pg. 247) References Dan Sperber's talk at the Santa Fe Institute Image credit: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/charlottehigginsblog/2009/oct/20/classics-barack-obama Social media everywhere Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Check us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Send a reason, any reason, any reason at all, to incrementspodcast@gmail.com. Support Increments

We cover the spicy showdown between the two of the world's most headstrong philosophers: Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper. In a dingy Cambridge classroom Wittgenstein once threatened Popper with a fireplace poker. What led to the disagreement? In this episode, we continue with the Conjectures and Refutations series by analyzing Chapter 2: The Nature of Philosophical Problems And Their Roots In Science, where Popper outlines his agreements and disagreements with Mr. Ludwig Wittgenstein. We discuss: Are there philosophical problems? Why are scientific disciplines divided as they are? How much of philosophy is meaningless pseudo-babble? (Hint: Not none) Wittgenstein's background and feud between him and Popper Wittgenstein 1 and 2 (pre and post Tractatus) The danger of philosophical inbreeding Two of Popper's examples of philosophical problems: 1. Plato and the Crisis in Early Greek Atomism 2. Immanuel Kant's Problem of Knowledge. Musica universalis The Problem of Change How is knowledge possible? Quotes My first thesis is that every philosophy, and especially every philosophical ‘school’, is liable to degenerate in such a way that its problems become practically indistinguishable from pseudo-problems, and its cant, accordingly, practically indistinguishable from meaningless babble. This, I shall try to show, is a consequence of philosophical inbreeding. The degeneration of philosophical schools in its turn is the consequence of the mistaken belief that one can philosophize without having been compelled to philosophize by problems which arise outside philosophy—in mathematics, for example, or in cosmology, or in politics, or in religion, or in social life. In other words my first thesis is this. Genuine philosophical problems are always rooted in urgent problems outside philosophy, and they die if these roots decay. C&R p.95 His question, we now know, or believe we know, should have been: ‘How are successful conjectures possible?’ And our answer, in the spirit of his Copernican Revolution, might, I suggest, be something like this: Because, as you said, we are not passive receptors of sense data, but active organisms. Because we react to our environment not always merely instinctively, but sometimes consciously and freely. Because we can invent myths, stories, theories; because we have a thirst for explanation, an insatiable curiosity, a wish to know. Because we not only invent stories and theories, but try them out and see whether they work and how they work. Because by a great effort, by trying hard and making many mistakes, we may sometimes, if we are lucky, succeed in hitting upon a story, an explanation, which ‘saves the phenomena’; perhaps by making up a myth about ‘invisibles’, such as atoms or gravitational forces, which explain the visible. Because knowledge is an adventure of ideas. C&R p.128 If you were to threaten us with a common household object, what would it be? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com, or on twitter: @VadenMasrani, @BennyChugg, @IncrementsPod. Support Increments

We're joined today by Matt Bateman, one of the founders of Higher Ground Education, to discuss the Montessori method of education and how it compares to other teaching methodologies. Get ready for tiny furniture, putting on your jacket upside down, and teaching your toddler to make eggs benedict. We discuss: Maria Montessori What is a Montessori education (besides tiny furniture)? How Montessori classrooms differ from regular ones Why long periods of interrupted problem solving is important for a child's development How Montessori integrates with technology Drawbacks of traditional methods of testing and grading, and how they might be amended The importance of cultivating a love of work How Matt wants to reform high school education Bio: Matt is one of the founders of Higher Ground Education, a worldwide Montessori network. He runs Montessorium, Higher Ground’s think tank. He holds a PhD in philosophy from the University of Pennsylvania, where he focused on the philosophy of science. Make sure to follow him on twitter for some golden education nuggets References: Matt on the Where We Go Next (formerly New Liberals) podcast. Montessorium Vocational Training for the Soul: Bringing the Meaning of Work to Schools Matt's History of Education Course Social media everywhere Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Check us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Special Guest: Matt Bateman.Support Increments