Robi Rahman
Bio
Participation9
Data scientist working on AI forecasting through Epoch and the Stanford AI Index. GWWC pledge member since 2017. Formerly social chair at Harvard Effective Altruism, facilitator for Arete Fellowship, and founder of the DC Slate Star Codex meetup.
Posts 7
Comments212
When a reward or penalty is so small, it is less effective than no incentive at all, sometimes by replacing an implicit incentive.
In the study, the daycare had a problem with parents showing up late to pick up their kids, making the daycare staff stay late to watch them. They tried to fix this problem by implementing a small fine for late pickups, but it had the opposite of the intended effect, because parents decided they were okay with paying the fine.
In this case, if you believe recruiting people to EA does a huge amount of good, you might think that it's very valuable to refer people to EAG, and there should be a big referral bounty.
From an altruistic cause prioritization perspective, existential risk seems to require longtermism
No it doesn't! Scott Alexander has a great post about how existential risk issues are actually perfectly well motivated without appealing to longtermism at all.
When I'm talking to non-philosophers, I prefer an "existential risk" framework to a "long-termism" framework. The existential risk framework immediately identifies a compelling problem (you and everyone you know might die) without asking your listener to accept controversial philosophical assumptions. It forestalls attacks about how it's non-empathetic or politically incorrect not to prioritize various classes of people who are suffering now. And it focuses objections on the areas that are most important to clear up (is there really a high chance we're all going to die soon?) and not on tangential premises (are we sure that we know how our actions will affect the year 30,000 AD?)
On the current margin, improving our odds of survival seems much more crucial to the long-term value of civilization. My reason for believing this is that there are some dangerous technologies which I expect will be invented soon, and are more likely to lead to extinction in their early years than later on. Therefore, we should currently spend more effort on ensuring survival, because we will have more time to improve the value of the future after that.
(Counterpoint: ASI is the main technology that might lead to extinction, and the period when it's invented might be equally front-loaded in terms of setting values as it is in terms of extinction risk.)
The idea of haggling doesn't sit well with me or my idea of what a good society should be like. It feels competitive, uncooperative, and zero-sum, when I want to live in a society where people are honest and cooperative.
Counterpoint: some people are more price-sensitive than typical consumers, and really can't afford things. If we prohibit or stigmatize haggling, society is leaving value on the table, in terms of sale profits and consumer surplus generated by transactions involving these more financially constrained consumers. (When the seller is a monopolist, they even introduce opportunities like this through the more sinister-sounding practice of price discrimination.)
This is actually disputed. While so-called "bird watchers" and other pro-bird factions may tell you there are many birds, the rival scientific theory contends that birds aren't real.