Space L Clottey

Okay. So the strat for this is thinking out how to critique an article well

isn’t it like: assumptions, and something else? I forget where I saw this.

0.8 x 0 = 0$

0.15 x 1 = 0.15$

0.049999 x 10 = 0.49999$

0.000001 x 100,000 = 0.1$

0 + 0.15 + 0.49999 + 0.1 = 0.7499

$75?

Oh, you don’t randomly times it by 100.

$0.75

0.5 x 0 = 0 0.4 x 2 = 0.8 0.1 x 10 = 0.1

$1.80 is the expected value

50% of the time, you gain $1

50% of the time, you lose $1

expected value must be 0.

weigh what? How much it matters?

if your best case scenario is to get back what you started with, there’s no utility in betting i don’t understand the video

Strat:

  1. Skim the paper
  2. show how the implications prove something ridiculous
  3. internal inconsistencies
  4. rigour, how much work went into the argument and evidence collection
    1. bad operational definitions. Thing you want, measuring something else
  5. good things
  6. preempt and adress counterarguments

bad things about expected value in general:

Summary

if I think they’re reasoning while motivated, what do I think they should do instead?

critiques

The “diminishing returns” thing is what makes it the most good why would diminishing returns not apply? Why would they be wrong about it?

i don’t understand the case for maths diminishing returns but I don’t think I need to. First draft! I’m ready!

one significant problem/weakness with perspective/arguments in the piece

the actually trying and holding oneself up to rigour one is the one I feel best about and I have a tonne of points for it and I could write 500 words on it, but maybe I should keep searching for something more technical, or respond to the point about bets.

in general: extremely minimal math or refernces. Philosophising, for which it’s impossible to tell if it’s right or wrong

=========

Same thing

Okay, points in favour of it being a rationalisation

Why World Classification is a Rationalisation

at the very least, it can be a harmful idea memetically due to the way humans interact with ideas, if not actually harmful

Okay, there’s a damn essay plan. Time to start

“Worldview classification” is a harmful idea based apon rationalisation, that permits far too many degrees of freedom of interpretation and action relative to the rigor that is required to solve extremely difficult problems.

The main source of rationalisation stems from the principle that exists where when a goal does not have a concerete end state, the time for when is appropriate to end depends on the jugement of the person completing that task. Eg. when doing homework, the task is completed when all the questions are answered. However, when trying to optimise for a goal outside of the bounds of a normal ruleset, the only time that it is appropriate to stop trying to win at the goal is dependent on the person carrying that out, however rigor is required for extremely difficult problems.

One that that will systematically lead to decreased rigor is wrong answers being acceptable. When wrong answers are accepted, and there is no penalty — emotional or otherwise — for getting things wrong, then it is not important that the person continue to try until they get it right, so they are more likely to conclude more earlier on that there was nothing they could have done. For example, if one man witnessess another drop their phone down the drain, it is a lot more likely that the witness will conclude that there is little they can do, and be more free to declare that the problem is not there’s to solve, as depending on the baseline level of empathy of the witness, the emotional punishment is significantly less. However, you can definately consider the man being far more desperate and thinking significantly more if it were his own phone that had dropped, as failure to get it out in time would lead to the loss of his contacts, photos, and precious information.

Because it is extremely difficult to put probabilities of catastrophic events, and probabilities of plans against those events into numbers, there is no measure that tells us if we do it right, therefore we only have ourselves to consider whether it is right or not, and we don’t have skin in the game. What we should do is going as far and beyond as we can into figuring out which cause is the most important, and we are to a large extent doing that. But if we are claiming that there is a point where we can stop sooner than we otherwise might because it would be acceptable, then it makes it extremely likely that we have stopped before a point that is optimal.

Of coures, I am not able to say here in a few sentences what I think that better cause is, because I am of course arguing that it is extremely likely that with a higher bar and lower acceptance for error, hundreds or thousands of hours of research will lead to more rigourous answers that can better inform what we do.

There is already evidence of motivated cognition in reasoning about this. through the reasoning of other intellegent people disagreeing with it.

Motivated stopping is also a threat to the “diminishing returns” model of when it makes the most sense to diversify investments. This is due to the same feature of the problem that there is no objective bar for success, therefore the point of where this bar is best to reach is mostly the case for where we deem it appropriate, and as this problem is one where we do not have as much skin in the game and there is no objective bar, it is baseline extremely likely that we will stop thinking of solutions too early. Permitting further wiggle room in rigour through permitting the concept of diminishing returns makes it even more likely that people will stop thinking too soon.

As with decreasing uncertainty, it is very likely that there are extremely valuable ways of spending money in the most important fields that we are permitted way more early to give up thinking about through the frame of their existting diminishing returns. It is extremely difficult to classify when we have hit diminishing returns.

As for expected value, it falls prey to pascal’s mugging.

There are other examples of blatant motivated cognition with the reasoning provided, such as the benefit for optics being conflated with the other benefits, and capacity transfer.

So in summary, “worldview classification” as an idea is infohazardous to creative rigor in solving extremely hard problems due to motivated stopping.

===

Even more summaried:

Worldview classification as an idea is infohazardous to creative rigour in solving extremely hard problems, due to the bias of motivated stopping.

Imagine a man who hears of a tragedy in a foreign country on the news. Bedrugingly he goes to donate, and finds that the transfer is declined due to vague international reasons. The man concludes that there is little he can do and continues with his day.

Consider alternatively a man who’s family is stuck in a foreign country, who goes to send money to them. His initial method receives the same declining due to the same vague error, however he thinks to research the error. Apon failing and being stuck once more, he searches for it in multiple search engines. Still failing, he brainstorms for a lot longer, and comes across the idea of calling a legal consultant, who refers him to the international departments section.

Many may argue that it is unreasonable to ask of every person that they put as much effort into helping every person as much as they would their family, whoever that is besides the point of the analogy. You see that the same problem that was considered unsolveable was really only a matter of a person’s framing towards the problem, and their desperation. When the man really needed to solve the problem, he did not stop at his first, second or third idea, and continued only until the problem is solved.

This problem applies even worse to the problem of solving the world’s most pressing problems, because in that scenario one does not even recieve the luxury of as clear a bar as “the money has been transferred”. In working on plans with unknown probabilities of success to decrease risks with unknown probabilities of playing out, it is left primarily to the human to decide when it is more reasonable to conclude brainstorming on an individual problem.

However, due to the problem of motivated stopping, this finishing point will seem far more tempting and rational in the presence of anything that permits decreased rigour.

This is the main problem with worldview classification and its major tenets of strong uncertainty and diminishing returns.

If researchers are posed with an emotionally salient alternative to continued rigorous thought on minising uncertainty of the single most pressing problem as far as it can possibly go with the information available to us, being to diversify recources away from that field and this being an overwhelmingly positive action, then the felt desperation to think and brainstorm a solution is removed, as though one is moving from being the man who wants to send money to his stranded family, to the one who is more detached from the situation.

Identially, the concept of diminishing returns is especially salient, especially in the absence of a rigorous measure that allows the user to objectively know once they have exhausted the possibilities. In the absence of the temptation of worldview classification,

Within this problem, motivated stopping in reducing cause uncertainty and identifying the true point of diminishing returns are not the only case of motivated cognition. It is also extremely likely that the later stated benefits of optics of the movement and building capacity are also subject to this bias, as in the case of optics, optimising for optics comes at the very large risk of decreasing what the movement is founded apon: true effectiveness. And arguments for building capacity are similar are vulnerable to the reasoning that worldview classification is truly the best way to increase these things, and is what we would be doing if it were our only goal.

It should be remembered what the stakes are for failing to apply more rigor to decreasing uncertainty in cause prioritisation and identifying the true points of diminishing marginal returns, which are potentially billions of lives.

Of course, the fact that there is no rigorous objective measure of wrongness or rightness makes it all the more likely that there is in fact an ideal point of recources dedicated into certain causes and that we have in fact hit the point of diminishing marginal returns, however I claim that biases such as motivated stopping make it systematically more likely to not have reached this point, and to consistently misidentify it.

=== OTHER ==

Imagine a man who hears of a tragedy in a foreign country. Bedrugingly he goes to donate, and finds that the transfer is declined due to vague international reasons. The man concludes that there is little he can do and continues with his day.

Consider alternatively a man whose family is stuck in a foreign country without money. This man is far more likely to continue brainstorming and trying solutions past the first decline of his card.

The analogy displays how the same problem that was considered unsolvable was really only a matter of a person’s framing and need. When the man really needed to solve the problem, he did not stop at his first, second or third idea, and continued only until the problem was really solved.

This bias of motivated stopping applies even more strongly to the task of solving the world’s most pressing problems, because in that scenario one does not even receive the luxury of as clear a bar as “the money has been transferred”. In working on plans with unknown probabilities of success to decrease risks with unknown probabilities of playing out, it is left primarily to the human to decide when it is most reasonable to conclude brainstorming on an individual problem.

However, due to the problem of motivated stopping, this finishing point will seem far more tempting and rational in the presence of anything that permits decreased rigour.

The main problem of worldview classification is that it permits this decreased rigour through creating an appealing-sounding alternate option, particularly in the fields of cause prioritisation uncertainty and diminishing returns.

If researchers are posed with an emotionally salient alternative to continued rigorous thought on minimising uncertainty of which is the single most pressing problem as far as it can possibly go with the information available to us, being (able) to diversify resources away from that field and this being an overwhelmingly positive action, then the felt desperation to think and brainstorm a solution is removed, as though one is moving from being the man who wants to send money to his stranded family, to the one who is more detached from the situation.

Identically, the concept of diminishing returns is especially salient, especially in the absence of a rigorous measure that allows the user to objectively know once they have exhausted the possibilities. In the absence of the temptation of worldview classification, it is probable that researchers continue to think of ways to appropriately use recources that foward progress on the problem.

Motivated stopping doesn’t guarrantee that we have not hit the true point of diminishing returns, however I claim that it makes us systematically more likely to misidentify it, meaning we are more likely to on average not have hit it on any given problem.

In summary, worldview classification as an idea is infohazardous to creative rigour in solving extremely hard problems, due to the bias of motivated stopping.

It should be remembered what the stakes are for failing to apply more rigor to decreasing uncertainty in cause prioritisation and identifying the true points of diminishing marginal returns, which are potentially billions of lives.

Within this problem, the above are not the only cases of motivated cognition. It is also extremely likely that the later stated benefits of optics of the movement and building capacity are also subject to this bias, as in the case of optics, optimising for optics comes at the very large risk of decreasing what the movement is founded apon: true effectiveness. And arguments for building capacity are similar and are vulnerable to the reasoning that worldview classification is truly the best way to increase these things, and is what we would be doing if it were our only goal.

== Should governments be investing more in space exploration? ==

== Okay ==

Strongest back and fourth is between

I could screw around with the order so I had more to say. I wish I could be more angry about it

== FIRST ==

The question of whether governemnts should invest more in space exploration seems to very quickly reveal itself as a more fundamental question surrounding the role and purpose of government in generality. A few of the roles of government are generally understood to be:

The question then is does — or even can space exploration fall under any of these categories, a question that can only be understood through assessing what the purpose or benefit of space exploration can possibly be.

One way of looking at this is to look at the benefits our previous forey into space provided us, namely the space race and moon landing of 1969.

[Insert benefits of moon landing].

However, there is another factor far more important. Exploration. Space exploration is inherently about exploring into that which we don’t know, and can’t extrapolate about. Precisely because it is the process of going deeper and understanding further terrain neither traversed or understood by — as far as we know — any living thing through all of history, it is notouriously difficult to reason about its likelihood of providing benefit to humankind.

This is a particularly arduous problem when compared against the existing opportunity cost of money spent on space exploration. As the previous space race showed, the percentage of US GDP required to signifanctly advance space travel technology was over 4% at its peak, and since has been consistently below 1%. Space exploration is incredibly expensive, meaning the opportunity cost are extremely, extremely large for the interventions governemnts can spend on that are certain to benefit their populations, the classic examples being increased spending into education and healthcare.

However, due to space explorations lack of legible, concrete benefit, and it’s nature as an act involving exploration, it is likely that it is systematically undersupplied relative to its benefits, which in expectation could be extroadinarily positive, just as how Einstein’s work on general relativity permitted the existene of the internet, something that no one had the means to fathom or expect beforehand.

Therefore, the undersupply of space exploration could be considered a market failure, something which does indeed fall under the role of government, it being their duty to resolve.

Okay, it’ll all loop back to market failure.

This is kinda boring. I might take a second away tbh.

== SECOND ==

The question of whether governemnts should invest more in space exploration seems to very quickly reveal itself as a more fundamental question surrounding the role and purpose of government in generality. A few of the roles of government are generally understood to be:

The question then is does — or even can space exploration fall under any of these categories, a question that can only be understood through assessing what the purpose or benefit of space exploration can possibly be.

One way of looking at this is to look at the benefits our previous forey into space provided us, namely the space race and moon landing of 1969, such as the unprescendented improvements in technology that are only similarly seen in times of war.

However, there is another factor far more important. Exploration. Space exploration is inherently about exploring into that which we don’t know, and can’t extrapolate about. Precisely because it is the process of going deeper and understanding further terrain neither traversed or understood by — as far as we know — any living thing through all of history, it is notouriously difficult to reason about its likelihood of providing benefit to humankind.

This is a particularly arduous problem when compared against the existing opportunity cost of money spent on space exploration. As the previous space race showed, the percentage of US GDP required to signifanctly advance space travel technology was over 4% at its peak, and since has been consistently below 1%. Space exploration is incredibly expensive, meaning the opportunity cost are extremely, extremely large for the interventions governemnts can spend on that are certain to benefit their populations, the classic examples being increased spending into education and healthcare.

However, due to space explorations lack of legible, concrete benefit, and it’s nature as an act involving exploration, it is possible that it is systematically undersupplied relative to its benefits, meaning its undersupply could be considered a market failure, one that it would be the government’s role to resolve through increased investments in it.

Though in order to suggest that space exploration is indeed undersupplied relative to it’s benefits, it is important to be able to state those expected benefits to the stakeholders of people, governemnt and nation.

One morally ambigious potentially benefit to governments is increased colonisation through the sections of space they travel through first, providing great means for them to compete with other countries on earth in trade and status.

However, I don’t believe that it is of net benefit to encourage this, and am in tentative support of the agreements that claim space to be birthright of humankind and belonging to no individual nation, similar to Antartica.

Another potential benefit to the people is energy, as it is well known that stars emit immense amounts of energy that could easily be used to end energy scarcity if properly harvested. However, increased investments in space exploration do not guarrantee progress in creating star-energy-harvesting technology.

Another more human benefit to the populus is general awe and increased happiness at something so amazing happening, such as how the world united during the original moon landing at a shared global milestone being broken.

However, though this effect would certaintly be in play, a large part of it during the original space race was cause of the competitive nature of the USA and Russia, one that spurred both countries to use magnificent recources on space travel that have not been close to being used at that rate since.

Additionally, encouraging competitions of this scale between countries can be at risk to the citizens of both, exemplified through the cold war that acted as the set piece for the original setpiece.

The most clear benefit I can see in terms of space exploration being a valueble bet is in the increases in technology trickling down to benefit all of humanity in unforseeable ways, much the same way how Albert Einstein’s work on general relativity led to the possibility of GPS systems.

Though is could be argued that money could be invested directly into technology innovation, it seems most likely to be valuable in the means of trying to acccomplish another goal, where innovation will truly be sought (as witnessed already in both the world wars and the original space race).

Therefore, I believe that the undersupply of space exploration can reasonably be concluded a market failure, something that does fall under the role of government, making it their duty to resolve it.

it is likely that it is systematically undersupplied relative to its benefits, which in expectation could be extroadinarily positive, just as how Einstein’s work on general relativity permitted the existene of the internet, something that no one had the means to fathom or expect beforehand.

Therefore, the undersupply of space exploration could be considered a market failure, something which does indeed fall under the role of government, it being their duty to resolve.

Okay, it’ll all loop back to market failure.

== THIRD ==

Whether governments should invest more in space exploration is a question of the role of government and whether space exploration fits under any of those roles, a few being the maintenance of:

Whether space exploration falls under any of these roles can be understood by assessing what purpose or benefit the action can have.

Depending on the stringency of space travel treaties, one potential benefit to governments who invest in space exploration first is increased colonisation and control, providing greater means for them to mine resources or to tax travel through their segments, increasing their nation’s revenue and status.

It is in each government’s individual interest to do this, however from a game theoretical perspective, altogether it is more beneficial to respect the Outer Space Treaty which declares that space is for the benefit of all humankind, similar to Antarctica.

Another potential benefit to people is improved equality through ending energy scarcity by star harvesting or through the discovery of other highly efficient energy sources. However, increased investments in space travel do not guarantee the ability to learn how to efficiently harvest stars, though it is likely to find other sources of energy.

The clearest benefit I can see in terms of space exploration being a valuable bet is in the increases in technology trickling down to benefit all of humanity in unforeseeable ways, much the same way how Einstein’s work on general relativity led to the possibility of GPS systems.

Though it could be argued that money could be invested directly into technology innovation, it seems most likely to be valuable in the means of trying to accomplish another goal, where innovation will truly be sought (as witnessed already in both the world wars and the original space race).

This of course comes at immense opportunity cost to exisiting problems that need only funding to continue helping people that have far clearer benefits to nations, such as education and healthcare. Because the benefits in technology are so illegible, space travel will likely never be as saught over as more easily understood interventions.

However, precisely because these benefits are less salient to the general population, it is extremely likely that space travel is consistently undersupplied relative to the benefit. This would mean lack of investment in space travel is a market failure, something that does indeed fall under the role of government, making it their duty to resolve it through increased investment.

However, there is another factor far more important. Exploration. Space exploration is inherently about exploring into that which we don’t know, and can’t extrapolate about. Precisely because it is the process of going deeper and understanding further terrain neither traversed or understood by — as far as we know — any living thing through all of history, it is notouriously difficult to reason about its likelihood of providing benefit to humankind.

This is a particularly arduous problem when compared against the existing opportunity cost of money spent on space exploration. As the previous space race showed, the percentage of US GDP required to signifanctly advance space travel technology waeen consistently below 1%. Sps over 4% at its peak, and since has bace exploration is incredibly expensive, meaning the opportunity cost are extremely, extremely large for the interventions governemnts can spend on that are certain to benefit their populations, the classic examples being increased spending into education and healthcare.

However, due to space explorations lack of legible, concrete benefit, and its nature as an act of exploration, it is possible that it is systematically undersupplied relative to its benefits, meaning its undersupply could be considered a market failure, one that it would be the government’s role to resolve through increased investments in it.

Though in order to suggest that space exploration is indeed undersupplied relative to it’s benefits, it is important to be able to state those expected benefits to the stakeholders of people, governemnt and nation.

Another more human benefit to the populous is general awe and increased happiness at something extroadinary taking place, such as how the world united during the original moon landing at a shared global milestone being broken.

However, though this effect would certainly be in play, a large part of it during the original space race was the cause of the competitive nature of the USA and Russia, one that spurred both countries to use magnificent resources on space travel that have not been close to being used at that rate since.

Interview

What to do do prepare?