Episoder
-
Internet addiction may not be as bad as some other forms of addiction, but itâs more common (and more personal). I have young children now and wanted to learn more about it, so I included some questions in last yearâs ACX survey. The sample was 5,981 ACX readers (obviously non-random in terms of Internet use level!). I donât think the results were very helpful, but I post them here for the sake of completeness.
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/indulge-your-internet-addiction-by
-
Recently weâve gotten into discussions about artistic taste (see comments on AI Art Turing Test and From Bauhaus To Our House).
This is a bit mysterious. Many (most?) uneducated people like certain art which seems âobviouslyâ pretty. But a small group of people who have studied the issue in depth say that in some deep sense, that art is actually bad (âkitschâ), and other art which normal people donât appreciate is better. They can usually point to criteria which the âsophisticatedâ art follows and the âkitschâ art doesnât, but to normal people these just seem like lists of pointless rules.
But most of the critics arenât Platonists - they donât believe that aesthetics are an objective good determined by God. So what does it mean to say that someone else is wrong?
Most of the comments discussion devolved into analogies - some friendly to the idea of âsuperior tasteâ, others hostile. Here are some that I find especially helpful:
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/friendly-and-hostile-analogies-for
-
Manglende episoder?
-
Like most people, Tom Wolfe didnât like modern architecture. He wondered why we abandoned our patrimony of cathedrals and palaces for a million indistinguishable concrete boxes.
Unlike most people, he was a journalist skilled at deep dives into difficult subjects. The result is From Bauhaus To Our House, a hostile history of modern architecture which addresses the question of: what happened? If everyone hates this stuff, how did it win?
How Did Modern Architecture Start?European art in the 1800s might have seemed a bit conservative. It was typically sponsored by kings, dukes, and rich businessmen, via national artistic guilds that demanded strict compliance with classical styles and heroic themes. The Continentâs new progressive intellectual class started to get antsy, culminating in the Vienna Secession of 1897. Some of Viennaâs avante-garde artists officially split from the local guild to pursue their unique transgressive vision.
The point wasnât that the Vienna Secession itself was particularly modernâŠ
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-from-bauhaus-to-our-house
-
Do longer prison sentences reduce crime?
It seems obvious that they should. Even if they donât deter anyone, they at least keep criminals locked up where they canât hurt law-abiding citizens. If, as the studies suggest, 1% of people commit 63% of the crime, locking up that 1% should dramatically decrease crime rates regardless of whether it scares anyone else. And blue state soft-on-crime policies have been followed by increasing theft and disorder.
On the other hand, people in the field keep saying thereâs no relationship. For example, criminal justice nonprofit Vera Institute says that Research Shows That Long Prison Sentences Donât Actually Improve Safety. And this seems to be a common position; William Chambliss, one of the nationâs top criminologists, said in 1999 that âvirtually everyone who studies or works in the criminal justice system agrees that putting people in prison is costly and ineffective.â
This essay is an attempt to figure out whatâs going on, whoâs right, whether prison works, and whether other things work better/worse than prison.
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/prison-and-crime-much-more-than-you
-
Suppose something important will happen at a certain unknown point. As someone approaches that point, you might be tempted to warn that the thing will happen. If youâre being appropriately cautious, youâll warn about it before it happens. Then your warning will be wrong. As things continue to progress, you may continue your warnings, and youâll be wrong each time. Then people will laugh at you and dismiss your predictions, since you were always wrong before. Then the thing will happen and theyâll be unprepared.
Toy example: suppose youâre a doctor. Your patient wants to try a new experimental drug, 100 mg. You say âDonât do it, we donât know if itâs safeâ. They do it anyway and itâs fine. You say âI guess 100 mg was safe, but donât go above that.â They try 250 mg and itâs fine. You say âI guess 250 mg was safe, but donât go above that.â They try 500 mg and itâs fine. You say âI guess 500 mg was safe, but donât go above that.â
They say âHaha, as if I would listen to you! First you said it might not be safe at all, but you were wrong. Then you said it might not be safe at 250 mg, but you were wrong. Then you said it might not be safe at 500 mg, but you were wrong. At this point I know youâre a fraud! Stop lecturing me!â Then they try 1000 mg and they die.
The lesson is: âmaybe this thing that will happen eventually will happen nowâ doesnât count as a failed prediction.
Iâve noticed this in a few places recently.
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/against-the-generalized-anti-caution
-
Last month, I challenged 11,000 people to classify fifty pictures as either human art or AI-generated images.
I originally planned five human and five AI pictures in each of four styles: Renaissance, 19th Century, Abstract/Modern, and Digital, for a total of forty. After receiving many exceptionally good submissions from local AI artists, I fudged a little and made it fifty. The final set included paintings by Domenichino, Gauguin, Basquiat, and others, plus a host of digital artists and AI hobbyists.
One of these two pretty hillsides is by one of historyâs greatest artists. The other is soulless AI slop. Can you tell which is which?
If you want to try the test yourself before seeing the answers, go here. The form doesn't grade you, so before you press "submit" you should check your answers against this key.
Last chance to take the test before seeing the results, which are:
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-did-you-do-on-the-ai-art-turing
-
In 1980, game theorist Robert Axelrod ran a famous Iterated Prisonerâs Dilemma Tournament.
He asked other game theorists to send in their best strategies in the form of âbotsâ, short pieces of code that took an opponentâs actions as input and returned one of the classic Prisonerâs Dilemma outputs of COOPERATE or DEFECT. For example, you might have a bot that COOPERATES a random 80% of the time, but DEFECTS against another bot that plays DEFECT more than 20% of the time, except on the last round, where it always DEFECTS, or if its opponent plays DEFECT in response to COOPERATE.
In the âtournamentâ, each bot âencounteredâ other bots at random for a hundred rounds of Prisonersâ Dilemma; after all the bots had finished their matches, the strategy with the highest total utility won.
To everyoneâs surprise, the winner was a super-simple strategy called TIT-FOR-TAT:
https://readscottalexander.com/posts/acx-the-early-christian-strategy
-
The rise of Christianity is a great puzzle. In 40 AD, there were maybe a thousand Christians. Their Messiah had just been executed, and they were on the wrong side of an intercontinental empire that had crushed all previous foes. By 400, there were forty million, and they were set to dominate the next millennium of Western history.
Imagine taking a time machine to the year 2300 AD, and everyone is Scientologist. The United States is >99% Scientologist. So is Latin America and most of Europe. The Middle East follows some heretical pseudo-Scientology that thinks L Ron Hubbard was a great prophet, but maybe not the greatest prophet.
This can only begin to capture how surprised the early Imperial Romans would be to learn of the triumph of Christianity. At least Scientology has a lot of money and a cut-throat recruitment arm! At least they fight back when you persecute them! At least they seem to be in the game!
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-the-rise-of-christianity
-
I.
Polymarket (and prediction markets in general) had an amazing Election Night. They called states impressively early and accurately, kept the site stable through what must have been incredible strain, and have successfully gotten prediction markets in front of the world (including the Trump campaign). From here itâs a flywheel; victory building on victory. Enough people heard of them this election that theyâll never lack for customers. And maybe Trumpâs CFTC will be kinder than Bidenâs and relax some of the constraints theyâre operating under. Theyâve realized the long-time rationalist dream of a widely-used prediction market with high volume, deserve more praise than I can give them here, and I couldnât be happier with their progress.
But I also think their Trump shares were mispriced by about ten cents, and that Trumpâs victory in the election doesnât do much to vindicate their numbers.
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/congrats-to-polymarket-but-i-still
-
[I havenât 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 canât guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.]
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-november-2024
-
A red sun dawns over San Francisco. Juxtaposed against clouds and sea, it forms a patriotic tableau: blood red, deathly white, and the blue of the void. As its first rays touch the city, the frantic traffic slows to a crawl; even the birds cease to sing. It is Election Day in the United States.
Future generations will number American elections among history's greatest and most terrible spectacles. As we remember the Games in the Colosseum, or the bloody knives of Tenochtitlan, so they will remember us. That which other ages would relegate to a tasteful coronation or mercifully quick coup, we extend into an eighteen-month festival of madness.
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mantic-monday-judgment-day
-
I.
Time to own the libs! ACX joins such based heterodox thinkers as Curtis Yarvin, Nick Fuentes, Richard Spencer, and David Duke in telling you what the woke Washington Post and failing LA Times donât want you to know: Donald Trump is the wrong choice for US President.
If youâre in a swing state, we recommend you vote Harris; if a safe state, Harris or your third-party candidate of choice.
[EDIT/UPDATE: If youâre in a safe state and want to trade your protest vote with a swing state voter, or vice versa, go to https://www.swapyourvote.org/]
I mostly stand by the reasoning in my 2016 post, Slate Star Codex Endorses Clinton, Johnson, Or Stein. But you can read a better and more recent argument against Trumpâs economic policy here, and against his foreign policy here. You can read an argument that Trump is a dangerous authoritarian here.
You can, but you wonât, because every American, most foreigners, and a substantial fraction of extra-solar aliens have already heard all of this a thousand times. Iâm under no illusion of having anything new to say, or having much chance of changing minds. I write this out of a vague sense of deontological duty rather than a consequentialist hope that anything will happen.
And Iâm writing the rest of this post because I feel bad posting a couple of paragraph endorsement and not following up. No guarantees this is useful to anybody.
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/acx-endorses-harris-oliver-or-stein
-
[This is a guest post by Clara Collier. Clara is the editor of Asterisk Magazine.]
Proposition 36 is a California ballot measure that increases mandatory sentences for certain drug and theft crimes.
Itâs also a referendum on over a decade of sentencing reform efforts stemming from Californiaâs historical prison overcrowding crisis. Like many states, California passed increasingly tough sentencing laws through the 90s and early 2000s. This led to the stateâs prisons operating massively over capacity: at its peak, a system built for 85,000 inhabitants housed 165,000. This was, among other things, a massive humanitarian crisis. The system was too overstretched to provide adequate healthcare to prisoners. Violence and suicide shot up.
In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that California prisons were so overcrowded that their conditions violated the 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. That year, the state assembly passed a package of reforms called "realignment," which shifted supervision of low-level offenders from the state to the counties. Then, in 2014, Californians voted for Proposition 47, which reduced some felony crimes to misdemeanors â theft of goods valued at under $950 and simple drug possession â and made people in prison for those crimes eligible for resentencing. Together, realignment and Prop 47 brought down Californiaâs prison and jail population by 55,000.
The campaign for Prop 36 is based on the premise that Prop 47 failed, leading to increased drug use and retail theft (but donât trust me â it says so in the text of the measure). 36 would repeal some parts of 47, add some additional sentencing increases, and leave some elements in place (the LA Times has a good breakdown of the changes here).
Itâs easy to round this off to a simple tradeoff: are we willing to put tens of thousands of people in jail if it would decrease the crime rate? But this would be the wrong way to think about the measure: there is no tradeoff. Prop 36 will certainly imprison many people, but it wonât help fight crime.
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-case-against-proposition-36
-
Tyler Cowen is an economics professor and blogger at Marginal Revolution. Patrick Collison is the billionaire founder of the online payments company Stripe. In 2019, they wrote an article calling for a discipline of Progress Studies, which would figure out what progress was and how to increase it. Later that year, tech entrepreneur Jason Crawford stepped up to spearhead the effort.
The immediate reaction was mostly negative. There were the usual gripes that âprogressâ was problematic because it could imply that some cultures/times/places/ideas were better than others. But there were also more specific objections: werenât historians already studying progress? Wasnât business academia already studying innovation? Are you really allowed to just invent a new field every time you think of something it would be cool to study?
It seems like you are. Five years later, Progress Studies has grown enough to hold its first conference. I got to attend, and it was great.
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/notes-from-the-progress-studies-conference
-
The Median Voter Theorem says that, given some reasonable assumptions, the candidate closest to the beliefs of the median voter will win. So if candidates are rational, theyâll all end up at the same place on a one-dimensional political spectrum: the exact center.
Hereâs a simple argument for why this should be true: suppose the Democrats wisely choose a centrist platform, but the Republicans foolishly veer far-right:
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/secrets-of-the-median-voter-theorem -
Thanks to our local meetup groups for doing this! Quick lookup version:
AUSTIN: Guide here
BOSTON: Guide here
CHICAGO: Guide here
LOS ANGELES: Guide here
NEW YORK CITY: Guide here
OAKLAND/BERKELEY: Guide here
PHILADELPHIA: Guide here
SAN FRANCISCO: Guide here
SEATTLE: Guide hereLonger version with commentary:
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/acx-local-voting-guides
-
What problem do we get after we've solved all other problems?
I.
Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom got famous for asking âWhat if technology is really really bad?â He helped define âexistential riskâ, popularize fears of malevolent superintelligence, and argue that we were living in a âvulnerable worldâ prone to physical or biological catastrophe.
His latest book breaks from his usual oeuvre. In Deep Utopia, he asks: âWhat if technology is really really good?â
Most previous utopian literature (he notes) has been about âshallowâ utopias. There are still problems; we just handle them better. Thereâs still scarcity, but at least the government distributes resources fairly. Thereâs still sickness and death, but at least everyone has free high-quality health care.
But Bostrom asks: what if there were literally no problems? What if you could do literally whatever you wanted?1 Maybe the world is run by a benevolent superintelligence whoâs uploaded everyone into a virtual universe, and you can change your material conditions as easily as changing desktop wallpaper. Maybe we have nanobots too cheap to meter, and if you whisper âplease make me a five hundred story palace, with a thousand servants who all look exactly like Marilyn Monroeâ, then your wish will be their command. If you want to be twenty feet tall and immortal, the only thing blocking you is the doorframe.
Would this be as good as it sounds? Or would peopleâs lives become boring and meaningless?
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-deep-utopia
-
Okay, letâs do this! Link is here, should take about twenty minutes. Iâll close the form on Monday 10/21 and post results the following week.
Iâll put an answer key in the comments here, and have a better one including attributions in the results post. DONâT READ THE COMMENTS UNTIL YOUâRE DONE.
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/ai-art-turing-test
-
Thanks to everyone who entered or voted in the book review contest. The winners are:
1st: Two Arms And A Head, reviewed by AmandaFromBethlehem. Amanda is active in the Philadelphia ACX community. This is her first year entering the Book Review Contest, and she is currently working on a silly novel about an alien who likes thermodynamics. When she's not writing existential horror, she practices Tengwar calligraphy and does home improvement projects.
2nd: Nine Lives, reviewed by David Matolcsi. David is an AI safety researcher from Hungary, currently living in Berkeley. He doesn't have much publicly available writing yet, but plans to publish some new blog posts on LessWrong in the coming months
3rd: How The War Was Won, reviewed by Jack Thorlin. Jack previously worked as an attorney at the Central Intelligence Agency, and is now an assistant professor at the University of Arkansas School of Law.
First place gets $2,500, second place $1,000, third place gets $500. Email me at [email protected] to tell me how to send you money; your choices are Paypal, Bitcoin, Ethereum, check in the mail, or donation to your favorite charity. Please contact me by October 21 or you lose your prize.
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-contest-2024-winners
-
I.
My ex-girlfriend has a weird relationship to reality. Her actions ripple out into the world more heavily than other people's. She finds herself at the center of events more often than makes sense. One time someone asked her to explain the whole âAI riskâ thing to a State Senator. She hadnât realized states had senators, but it sounded important, so she gave it a try, figuring out her exact pitch on the car ride to his office.
A few months later, she was informed that the Senator had really taken her words to heart, and he'd been thinking hard about how he could help. This is part of the story behind SB 1047 - specifically, the only part I have any personal connection to. The rest of this post comes from anonymous sources in the pro-1047 community who wanted to tell their side of the story.
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/sb-1047-our-side-of-the-story
- Vis mere
