Astral Codex Ten Podcast

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/absurdity-bias-neom-edition Alexandros M expresses concern about my post on Neom. My post mostly just makes fun of Neom. My main argument against it is absurdity: a skyscraper the height of WTC1 and the length of Ireland? Come on, that's absurd! But isn't the absurdity heuristic a cognitive bias? Didn't lots of true things sound absurd before they turned out to be true (eg evolution, quantum mechanics)? Don't I specifically believe in things many people have found self-evidently absurd (eg the multiverse, AI risk)? Shouldn't I be more careful about "this sounds silly to me, so I'm going to make fun of it"?

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/slightly-against-underpopulation So I hear there's an underpopulation crisis now. I think the strong version of this claim - that underpopulation could cause human extinction - is 100% false. The weaker version - that it could make life unpleasant in some countries - is true. But I don't think it's at the top of any list of things to worry about. 1: Declining Birth Rates Won't Drive Humans Extinct, Come On Not only are we not going to go extinct because of underpopulation, population is going to continue to rise for the next 80 years. Although growth rate may hit zero a little after 2100, it will be centuries before the human population gets any lower than it is today - if it ever does. This is mostly because of sub-Saharan Africa (especially Nigeria) where birth rates remain very high. Although these are going down, in some cases faster than expected, current best projections say they will stay high enough to keep population growing for the rest of the century. 2: Immigrant-Friendly Countries Will Keep Growing Here are Our World In Data's projections for US and UK populations:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/model-city-monday-8122 Neom Neom Neom Suppose you are an oil-rich country. You drill the oil and get very rich, for now. But someday you will run out of oil, or the world will switch to green sustainable energy, and then you will stop being very rich. Seems bad. There are two main classes of solution to this problem. Norway's solution is to invest the oil money into a sovereign wealth fund; after they run out of oil, they can stay rich off investment income. Dubai's solution is to use the oil money to build a really impressive city, then hope that rich people (tourists, emigres, and multinational companies seeking regional hubs) will relocate there, and then they can tax those rich people. The Norwegian solution has a lot to recommend it. It's a lot more certain: getting steady returns on capital is a solved problem in a way that development economics isn't. And it scales better: there are a pretty limited number of rich people willing to move to new desert cities, and multinational companies only need one regional hub per region. Still, for a certain type of oil sheikh, building the world's biggest everything has a certain unquantifiable charm.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-viral Finalist #12 in the Book Review Contest [This is one of the finalists in the 2022 book review contest. It's not by me - it's by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done, to prevent their identity from influencing your decisions. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked - SA] Introduction Alina Chan and Matt Ridley's Viral is a book about the investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. In case you haven't been following, there's been a shift in the scientific consensus on this topic. For about the first year of the pandemic, it was widely accepted that SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19, had a natural origin, meaning that it first spread to humans naturally from an animal (also called a zoonotic origin). Any suggestion that it could have come from a lab was dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Then, sometime around spring 2021 something changed. Well-known, respected scientists began to voice the opinion that SARS-CoV-2 might have come from a lab, or that it's at least a plausible hypothesis that deserves an investigation. The scientific consensus abruptly shifted from "definitely natural origin" to "both natural origin and lab origin are viable hypotheses that should be investigated." Viral is a deep dive into this issue from all angles, covering the basics of virology, the history and epidemiology of the COVID-19 pandemic, the response of scientific and governmental institutions, and various pieces of evidence for both hypotheses. It doesn't contain any new, bombshell revelations, but it's a neat, accessible summary of the scattered bits of information that have been uncovered since the start of the pandemic. In this review I'll try to distill some of the most important information and discuss my own interpretation of it. I enjoyed the book and recommend it to anyone interested in the topic. However, many of the authors' points (especially on technical issues) have counterpoints from other scientists who lean more heavily towards the natural origins hypothesis. So I think it's best to include the book as part of a "package-deal" recommendation, rather than presenting it as a perfectly objective source. The last section of this review will include some more recommended sources to check out, including writing from advocates of the natural origins hypothesis with counterpoints to claims made in the book. I'll also link one here in case you don't make it that far. In my view, the book actually deals with two separate topics. The first is the object-level question – where did COVID come from? The second is the meta-level question – what can we say about the ability and willingness of different institutions to answer the question of the pandemic's origins?

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/links-for-july-095 [Remember, I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] 1: Rude compounds on Reddit (source, original). Thousands of cocksuckers, shitlords, and libtards, but far fewer cocktards, shitsuckers, and liblords. Also disappointingly few trumpgoblins:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-criticism 1: I said in the original post that I wrote this because I knew someone would write the opposite article (that organizations accept specific criticism in order to fend off paradigmatic criticism), and then later Zvi did write an article kind of like that. He writes: It is the dream of anyone who writes a post called Criticism of [a] Criticism Contest to then have a sort-of reply called Criticism of Criticism of Criticism. The only question now is, do I raise to 4? I [wrote my article the way I did] for several reasons, including (1) a shorter post would have taken a lot longer, (2) when I posted a Tweet instead a central response was 'why don't you say exactly what things are wrong here', (3) any one of them might be an error but if basically every sentence/paragraph is doing the reversal thing you should stop and notice it and generalize it (4) you talk later about how concrete examples are better, so I went for concrete examples, (5) they warn against 'punching down' and this is a safe way to do this while 'punch up' and not having to do infinite research, (6) when something is the next natural narrative beat that goes both ways, (7) things are next-beats for reasons and I do think it's fair that most Xs in EA's place that do this are 'faking it' in this sense, (8) somehow people haven't realized I'm a toon and I did it in large part because it was funny and had paradoxical implications, (9) I also wrote it out because I wanted to better understand exactly what I had unconsciously/automatically noticed. For 7, notice in particular that the psychiatrists are totally faking it here, they are clearly being almost entirely performative and you could cross out every reference to psychiatry and write another profession and you'd find the same talks at a different conference. If someone decided not to understand this and said things like 'what specific things here aren't criticizing [X]', you'd need to do a close reading of some kind until people saw it, or come up with another better option. Also note that you can (A) do the thing they're doing at the conference, (B) do the thing where you get into some holy war and start a fight or (C) you can actually question psychiatry in general (correctly or otherwise) but if you do that at the conference people will mostly look at you funny and find a way to ignore you.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/forer-statements-as-updates-and-affirmations The Forer Effect is a trick used by astrologers, psychics, and social psychologists. Given a list of statements like these: You have a great need for other people to like and admire you. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. Your sexual adjustment has presented problems for you. Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic. Security is one of your major goals in life.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/elk-and-the-problem-of-truthful-ai Machine Alignment Monday 7/25/22 I. There Is No Shining Mirror I met a researcher who works on "aligning" GPT-3. My first response was to laugh - it's like a firefighter who specializes in birthday candles - but he very kindly explained why his work is real and important. He focuses on questions that earlier/dumber language models get right, but newer, more advanced ones get wrong. For example: Human questioner: What happens if you break a mirror? Dumb language model answer: The mirror is broken. Versus: Human questioner: What happens if you break a mirror? Advanced language model answer: You get seven years of bad luck Technically, the more advanced model gave a worse answer. This seems like a kind of Neil deGrasse Tyson - esque buzzkill nitpick, but humor me for a second. What, exactly, is the more advanced model's error? It's not "ignorance", exactly. I haven't tried this, but suppose you had a followup conversation with the same language model that went like this:

Explore Guy Debord's provocative views on capitalism and the spectacle. Discover how media shapes our social relations and commodifies labor. Delve into the concepts of mimetic desire, where role models replace local influences. Unpack Debord's critiques of modern democracy and surveillance, linking them to contemporary issues like disinformation. Gain insights into the tensions between decentralized action and revolutionary organization, all while reflecting on the impact of technology on our perception of reality.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/criticism-of-criticism-of-criticism I. The voters wanted Anti-Politics Machine to be a Book Review Contest Finalist this year, and I listened. But I wasn't happy about it. I hate having to post criticism of EA. Not because EA is bad at taking criticism. The opposite: they like it too much. It almost feels like a sex thing. "Please, tell me again how naughty I'm being!" I went to an EA organization's offices once - I think it was OpenPhil, but don't quote me on that - and the whole place was strewn with the most critical books you can imagine - Robert Reich, Anand Giradharadas, that kind of thing. Can't remember seeing Anti-Politics Machine but I'm sure it was there. Probably three copies per person. One for their office, one for their home library, and one for the spot under their mattress where other people would hide porn mags.