Astral Codex Ten Podcast

I. A: I like Indian food. B: Oh, so you like a few bites of flavorless rice daily? Because India is a very poor country, and that's a more realistic depiction of what the average Indian person eats. And India has poor food safety laws - do you like eating in unsanitary restaurants full of rats? And are you condoning Narendra Modi's fascist policies? A: I just like paneer tikka. This is how most arguments about being "trad" sound to me. Someone points out that they like some feature of the past. Then other people object that this feature is idealized, the past wasn't universally like that, and the past had many other bad things. But "of the past" is just meant to be a pointer! "Indian food" is a good pointer to paneer tikka even if it's an idealized view of how Indians actually eat, even if India has lots of other problems! In the same way, when people say they like Moorish Revival architecture or the 1950s family structure or whatever, I think of these as pointers. It's fine if the Moors also had some bad buildings, or not all 1950s families were really like that. Everyone knows what they mean! https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/fake-tradition-is-traditional

I. Steve Kirsch is an inventor and businessman most famous for developing the optical mouse. More recently, he's become an anti-COVID-vaccine activist. He has many different arguments on his Substack, of which one especially caught my eye: He got Pollfish, a reputable pollster, to ask questions about people's COVID experiences, including whether they thought any family members had died from COVID or from COVID vaccines. Results here: 7.5% of people said a household member had died of COVID 8.5% of people said a household member had died from the vaccine. All other statistics were normal and confirmed that this was a fair sample of the population. In particular, about 75% were vaccinated (suggesting that they weren't just polling hardcore anti-vaxxers). https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/failure-to-replicate-anti-vaccine

I. Lately we've been discussing some of the ethics around genetics and embryo selection. One question that comes up in these debates is - are we claiming that some people are genetically inferior to other people? If we're trying to select schizophrenia genes out of the population - even setting aside debates about whether this would work and whether we can do it non-coercively - isn't this still in some sense claiming that schizophrenics are genetically inferior? And do we really want to do this? I find it clarifying to set aside schizophrenia for a second and look at cystic fibrosis. Cystic fibrosis is a simple single-gene disorder. A mutation in this gene makes lung mucus too thick. People born with the disorder spend their lives fighting off various awful lung infections before dying early, usually in their 20s to 40s. There's a new $300,000/year medication that looks promising, but we've yet to see how much it can increase life expectancy. As far as I know, there's nothing good about cystic fibrosis. It's just an awful mutation that leads to a lifetime of choking on your own lung mucus. So: are people with cystic fibrosis genetically inferior, or not? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/nobody-can-make-you-feel-genetically

Seven years ago, I wrote an online serial novel, Unsong, about alternate history American kabbalists. You can read the online version here. The online version isn't going anywhere, but lots of people asked for a hard copy. I tried to get the book formally published, but various things went wrong and I procrastinated. Commenter Pycea finally saved me from myself and helped get it published on Amazon (thank you!) You can now buy the book here, for $19.99. I think the published version is an improvement over the original. I rewrote three or four chapters I wasn't satisfied with, and changed a few character names to be more kabbalistically appropriate. The timeline and history have been rectified, and there are more details on the 2000 - 2015 period and how UNSONG was founded. I gave the political situation a little more depth (watch for the Archon of Arkansas, the Shogun of Michigan, and the Caliph of California). And the sinister Malia Ngo has been replaced by the equally sinister, but actual-character-development-having, Ash Bentham. All of the parts that were actually good have been kept. Thanks to everyone for being patient, and special thanks to Pycea for making this happen. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/unsong-available-in-paperback

I. Lyman Stone wrote an article Why Effective Altruism Is Bad. You know the story by now, let's start with the first argument: The only cities where searches for EA-related terms are prevalent enough for Google to show it are in the Bay Area and Boston…We know the spatial distribution of effective altruist ideas. We can also get IRS data on charitable giving… Stone finds that Google Trends shows that searches for "effective altruism" concentrate most in the San Francisco Bay Area and Boston. So he's going to see if those two cities have higher charitable giving than average, and use that as his metric of whether EAs give more to charity than other people. He finds that SF and Boston do give more to charity than average, but not by much, and this trend has if anything decreased in the 2010 - present period when effective altruism was active. So, he concludes, https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/contra-stone-on-ea

[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.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-may-2024

There's been renewed debate around Bryan Caplan's The Case Against Education recently, so I want to discuss one way I think about this question. Education isn't just about facts. But it's partly about facts. Facts are easy to measure, and they're a useful signpost for deeper understanding. If someone has never heard of Chaucer, Dickens, Melville, Twain, or Joyce, they probably haven't learned to appreciate great literature. If someone can't identify Washington, Lincoln, or either Roosevelt, they probably don't understand the ebb and flow of American history. So what facts does the average American know? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/a-theoretical-case-against-education

In my book review of The Others Within Us, I wrote: [An Internal Family Systems session] isn't supposed to be just the therapist walking you through guided imagery, or you making up a story you tell yourself. The therapist asks you "Look inside until you find the part that's sabotaging your relationship", and you are supposed to discover - not invent, discover - that your unconscious gives it the form of a snake called Sabby. And you are supposed to hear as in a trance - again, not invent - Sabby telling you that she's been protecting you from heartbreak since your last breakup. When you bargain with Sabby, it's a two-way negotiation. You learn - not decide - whether or not Sabby agrees to any given bargain. According to Internal Family Systems (which descends from normal family systems, ie family therapy where the whole family is there at once and has to compromise with each other), all this stuff really is in your mind, waiting for an IFS therapist to discover it. When Carl Jung talked about interacting with the archetypes or whatever, he wasn't being metaphorical. He literally meant "go into a trance that gives you a sort of waking lucid dream where you meet all this internal stuff". Some IFS therapists chimed in to say this was wrong. For example, DaystarEld: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/what-is-going-on-in-ifs

Internal Family Systems, the hot new psychotherapy, has a secret. "Hot new psychotherapy" might sound dismissive. It's not. There's always got to be one. The therapy that's getting all the buzz, curing all the incurable patients, rocking those first few small studies. The therapy that was invented by a grizzled veteran therapist working with Patients Like You, not the out-of-touch elites behind all the other therapies. The therapy that Really Gets To The Root Of The Problem. There's always got to be one, and now it's IFS. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-the-others-within-us

It's time to narrow the 150 entries in the Book Review Contest to about a dozen finalists. I can't read 150 reviews alone, so I need your help. You'll find the entries in six Google Docs (thanks to a reader for collating them): A - D E - I L - P R - S Th - The N The O - Y Please pick as many as you have time for, read them, and rate them using this form. Don't read them in order! If you read them in order, I'll have 1,000 votes on the first review, 500 on the second, and so on to none in the second half. Either pick a random review (thanks to AlexanderTheGrand and Taymon for making a random-review-chooser script here) or pick whichever seems most interesting to you. List of all books reviewed below. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/choose-book-review-finalists-2024

Suffering is part of the human condition, except when it isn't. I met a man at an ACX meetup once who claimed he has never felt anxiety, not even the littlest bit. His father was the same way, so maybe it's genetic. Some people feel more pain than others. The "more pain" category includes some big demographic groups like redheads, who seem to feel some types of pain more intensely and may need up to 20% more anaesthetic, though their exact processing differences are complicated. But there are also various lesser-known genetic conditions that can make bizarre things - water, light touch, mild temperature changes - excruciatingly painful. The most exotic cause of this syndrome has to be platypus venom, which is both painful in and of itself and also seems to increase the body's overall capacity to feel pain; for years after a platypus scratch, every tiny scrape will hurt worse than usual. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/profile-the-far-out-initiative

Manifold pivot || Lab leak hindcasting || CFTC extra-double-bans prediction markets https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mantic-monday-51324

Most recent post here. Table Of Contents: 1: Comments From Robin 2: Comments About/From Goldin et al 3: Comments From The Rest Of You Yokels https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mantic-monday-51324

If you're from a country that doesn't have emotional support animals, here's how it works. Sometimes places ban or restrict animals. For example, an apartment building might not allow dogs. Or an airline might charge you money to transport your cat. But the law requires them to allow service animals, for example guide dogs for the blind. A newer law also requires some of these places to allow emotional support animals, ie animals that help people with mental health problems like depression or anxiety. So for example, if you're depressed, but having your dog nearby makes you feel better, then a landlord has to let you keep your dog in the apartment. Or if you're anxious, but petting your cat calms you down, then an airline has to take your cat free of charge. Clinically and scientifically, this is great. Many studies show that pets help people with mental health problems. Depressed people really do benefit from a dog who loves them. Anxious people really do feel calmer when they hold a cute kitten. Legally, it's a racket. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-emotional-support-animal-racket

California's state senate is considering SB1047, a bill to regulate AI. Since OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Meta are all in California, this would affect most of the industry. If the California state senate passed a bill saying that the sky was blue, I would start considering whether it might be green, or colorless, or maybe not exist at all. And people on Twitter have been saying that this bill would ban open-source AI - no, all AI! - no, all technology more complicated than a toaster! So I started out skeptical. But Zvi Mowshowitz (summary article in Asterisk, long FAQ on his blog) has looked at it more closely and found: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/asteriskzvi-on-californias-ai-bill

Original post here. Table Of Contents: 1: Response From The Author 2: Attempted Fact Checks 3: People With Personal Experience At Their Workplace 4: People With Personal Experience In Civil Rights 5: The Origins Of Modern Wokeness 6: Other Countries 7: EEOC Lawsuits 8: Other Good Comments 9: Conclusions And Updates https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-the-cf9

The Origins Of Woke, by Richard Hanania, has an ambitious thesis. And it argues for an ambitious thesis. But the thesis it has isn't the one it argues for. The claimed thesis is "the cultural package of wokeness is downstream of civil rights law". It goes pretty hard on this. For example, there's the title, The Origins Of Woke. Or the Amazon blurb: "The roots of the culture lie not in the culture itself, but laws and regulations enacted decades ago". Or the banner ad:= The other thesis, the one it actually argues for, is "US civil rights law is bad". On its own, this is a fine thesis. A book called Civil Rights Law Is Bad would - okay, I admit that despite being a professional Internet writer I have no idea how the culture works anymore, or whether being outrageous is good or bad for sales these days. We'll never know, because Richard chose to wrap his argument in a few pages on how maybe this is the origin of woke or something. Still, the book is on why civil rights law is bad. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-the-origins-of-woke

Robin Hanson replied here to my original post challenging him on health care here. On Straw-Manning Robin thinks I'm straw-manning him. He says: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/response-to-hanson-on-health-care

In November 2022, Aella posted this Twitter poll: 19% of women without pre-menstrual symptoms believed in the supernatural, compared to 39% of women with PMS. I can't do chi-squared tests in my head, but with 1,074 votes this looks significant. Weird! Here's another one Now 72% of people with PMS self-describe as neurotic, compared to only 45% without. Aella writes more about this here, and sebjenseb confirms here. I'm less weirded out by this one, because you can imagine that people feel neurotic because of PMS symptoms, but it's still a surprisingly strong effect. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/survey-results-pms-symptoms

One of the most common arguments against AI safety is: Here's an example of a time someone was worried about something, but it didn't happen. Therefore, AI, which you are worried about, also won't happen. I always give the obvious answer: "Okay, but there are other examples of times someone was worried about something, and it did happen, right? How do we know AI isn't more like those?" The people I'm arguing with always seem so surprised by this response, as if I'm committing some sort of betrayal by destroying their beautiful argument. The first hundred times this happened, I thought I must be misunderstanding something. Surely "I can think of one thing that didn't happen, therefore nothing happens" is such a dramatic logical fallacy that no human is dumb enough to fall for it. But people keep bringing it up, again and again. Very smart people, people who I otherwise respect, make this argument and genuinely expect it to convince people! Usually the thing that didn't happen is overpopulation, global cooling, etc. But most recently it was some kind of coffeepocalypse: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/desperately-trying-to-fathom-the

Robin Hanson of Overcoming Bias more or less believes medicine doesn't work [EDIT: see his response here, where he says this is an inaccurate summary of his position. Further chain of responses here and here] This is a strong claim. It would be easy to round Hanson's position off to something weaker, like "extra health care isn't valuable on the margin". This is how most people interpret the studies he cites. Still, I think his current, actual position is that medicine doesn't work. For example, he writes: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/contra-hanson-on-medical-effectiveness

[previously in series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5] When that April with his sunlight fierce The rainy winter of the coast doth pierce And filleth every spirit with such hale As horniness engenders in the male Then folk go out in crop tops and in shorts Their bodies firm from exercise and sports And men gaze at the tall girls and the shawties And San Franciscans long to go to parties. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/ye-olde-bay-area-house-party

Lumina, the genetically modified anti-tooth-decay bacterium that I wrote about in December, is back in the news after lowering its price from $20,000 to $250 and getting endorsements from Yishan Wong, Cremieux, and Richard Hanania (as well as anti-endorsements from Saloni and Stuart Ritchie). A few points that have come up: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/updates-on-lumina-probiotic

Original post here. Table of contents below. I want to especially highlight three things. First, Saar wrote a response to my post (and to zoonosis arguments in general). I've put a summary and some my responses at 1.11, but you can read the full post on the Rootclaim blog. Second, I kind of made fun of Peter for giving some very extreme odds, and I mentioned they were sort of trolling, but he's convinced me they were 100% trolling. Many people held these poorly-done calculations against Peter, so I want to make it clear that's my fault for mis-presenting it. See 3.1 for more details. Third, in my original post, I failed to mention that Peter also has a blog, including a post summing up his COVID origins argument. Thanks to some people who want to remain anonymous for helping me with this post. Any remaining errors are my own. 1: Comments Arguing Against Zoonosis — 1.1: Is COVID different from other zoonoses? — 1.2: Were the raccoon-dogs wild-caught? — 1.3: 92 early cases — 1.4: COVID in Brazilian wastewater — 1.5 Biorealism's 16 arguments — 1.6: DrJayChou's 7 arguments — 1.7: How much should coverup worry us? — 1.8: Have Worobey and Pekar been debunked? — 1.9: Was there ascertainment bias in early cases — 1.10: Connor Reed / Gwern on cats — 1.11: Rootclaim's response to my post 2: Comments Arguing Against Lab Leak — 2.1: Is the pandemic starting near WIV reverse correlation? 3: Other Points That Came Up — 3.1: Apology to Peter re: extreme odds — 3.2: Tobias Schneider on Rootclaim's Syria Analysis — 3.3: Closing thoughts on Rootclaim 4: Summary And Updates https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-the-5d7

[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.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-april-2024

Many cities have regular Astral Codex Ten meetup groups. Twice a year, I try to advertise their upcoming meetups and make a bigger deal of it than usual so that irregular attendees can attend. This is one of those times. This year we have spring meetups planned in over eighty cities, from Tokyo, Japan to Seminyak, Indonesia. Thanks to all the organizers who responded to my request for details, and to Meetups Czar Skyler and the Less Wrong team for making this happen. You can find the list below, in the following order: Africa & Middle East Asia-Pacific (including Australia) Europe (including UK) North America & Central America South America There should very shortly be a map of these meetups on the LessWrong community page. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/spring-meetups-everywhere-2024

Saar Wilf is an ex-Israeli entrepreneur. Since 2016, he's been developing a new form of reasoning, meant to transcend normal human bias. His method - called Rootclaim - uses Bayesian reasoning, a branch of math that explains the right way to weigh evidence. This isn't exactly new. Everyone supports Bayesian reasoning. The statisticians support it, I support it, Nate Silver wrote a whole book supporting it. But the joke goes that you do Bayesian reasoning by doing normal reasoning while muttering "Bayes, Bayes, Bayes" under your breath. Nobody - not the statisticians, not Nate Silver, certainly not me - tries to do full Bayesian reasoning on fuzzy real-world problems. They'd be too hard to model. You'd make some philosophical mistake converting the situation into numbers, then end up much worse off than if you'd tried normal human intuition. Rootclaim spent years working on this problem, until he was satisfied his method could avoid these kinds of pitfalls. Then they started posting analyses of different open problems to their site, rootclaim.com. Here are three:

It's every blogger's curse to return to the same arguments again and again. Matt Yglesias has to keep writing "maybe we should do popular things instead of unpopular ones", Freddie de Boer has to keep writing "the way culture depicts mental illness is bad", and for whatever reason, I keep getting in fights about whether you can have probabilities for non-repeating, hard-to-model events. For example: What is the probability that Joe Biden will win the 2024 election? What is the probability that people will land on Mars before 2050? What is the probability that AI will destroy humanity this century? The argument against: usually we use probability to represent an outcome from some well-behaved distribution. For example, if there are 400 white balls and 600 black balls in an urn, the probability of pulling out a white ball is 40%. If you pulled out 100 balls, close to 40 of them would be white. You can literally pull out the balls and do the experiment. In contrast, saying "there's a 45% probability people will land on Mars before 2050" seems to come out of nowhere. How do you know? If you were to say "the probability humans will land on Mars is exactly 45.11782%", you would sound like a loon. But how is saying that it's 45% any better? With balls in an urn, the probability might very well be 45.11782%, and you can prove it. But with humanity landing on Mars, aren't you just making this number up? Since people on social media have been talking about this again, let's go over it one more depressing, fruitless time. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-continued-defense-of-non-frequentist

I have data from two big Internet surveys, Less Wrong 2014 and Clearer Thinking 2023. Both asked questions about IQ: The average LessWronger reported their IQ as 138. The average ClearerThinking user reported their IQ as 130. These are implausibly high. Only 1/200 people has an IQ of 138 or higher. 1/50 people have IQ 130, but the ClearerThinking survey used crowdworkers (eg Mechanical Turk) who should be totally average. Okay, fine, so people lie about their IQ (or foolishly trust fake Internet IQ tests). Big deal, right? But these don't look like lies. Both surveys asked for SAT scores, which are known to correspond to IQ. The LessWrong average was 1446, corresponding to IQ 140. The ClearerThinking average was 1350, corresponding to IQ 134. People seem less likely to lie about their SATs, and least likely of all to optimize their lies for getting IQ/SAT correspondences right. And the Less Wrong survey asked people what test they based their estimates off of. Some people said fake Internet IQ tests. But other people named respected tests like the WAIS, WISC, and Stanford-Binet, or testing sessions by Mensa (yes, I know you all hate Mensa, but their IQ tests are considered pretty accurate). The subset of about 150 people who named unimpeachable tests had slightly higher IQ (average 140) than everyone else. Thanks to Spencer Greenberg of ClearerThinking, I think I'm finally starting to make progress in explaining what's going on. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-mystery-of-internet-survey-iqs

Both the Atlantic's critique of polyamory and my defense of it shared the same villain - "therapy culture", the idea that you should prioritize "finding your true self" and make drastic changes if your current role doesn't seem "authentically you". A friend recently suggested a defense of this framework, which surprised me enough that I now relay it to you. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-partial-grudging-defense-of-some

(inspired by Aid Airdrop Kills Five People In Gaza After Parachute Fails) https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/verses-on-five-people-being-killed

Robots of prediction, predictions of robots https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mantic-monday-31124

There are ACX meetup groups all over the world. Lots of people are vaguely interested, but don't try them out until I make a big deal about it on the blog. Since learning that, I've tried to make a big deal about it on the blog twice annually, and it's that time of year again. If you're willing to organize a meetup for your city, please fill out the organizer form. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/spring-meetups-everywhere-2024-call

The consensus says "biological race doesn't exist". But if race doesn't exist, how do we justify affirmative action, cultural appropriation, and all our other race-related practices? The consensus says that, although race doesn't exist biologically, it exists as a series of formative experiences. Black children are raised by black mothers in black communities, think of themselves as black, identify with black role models, and face anti-black prejudice. By the time they're grown up, they've had different experiences which give them a different perspective from white people. Therefore, it's reasonable to think of them as a specific group, "the black race", and have institutions to accommodate them even if they're biologically indistinguishable. I thought about this while reading A Professor Claimed To Be Native American; Did She Know She Wasn't? (paywalled), Jay Kang's New Yorker article on Elizabeth Hoover. The story goes something like this (my summary): https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-should-we-think-about-race-and

I. What's Going On We got 351 proposals for ACX Grants, but were only able to fund 34 of them. I'm not a professional grant evaluator and can't guarantee there aren't some jewels hidden among the remaining 317. The plan has always been to run an impact market - a site where investors crowdfund some of the remaining grant proposals. If the project goes well, then philanthropists who missed it the first time (eg me) will pay the investors for funding it, potentially earning them a big profit. In our last impact market test, some people (okay, one person) managed to get 25x their initial investment by funding a charity which did really well. So in my ideal world, we'd be running an impact market where you could invest your money in the remaining 317 proposals and make a profit if they did well. We've encountered two flaws on the way to that ideal world: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/acx-grants-followup-impact-market

Winners and takeaways from last year's prediction contest I. The Annual Forecasting Contest …is one of my favorite parts of this blog. I get a spreadsheet with what are basically takes - "Russia is totally going to win the war this year", "There's no way Bitcoin can possibly go down". Then I do some basic math to it, and I get better takes. There are ways to look at a list of 3300 people's takes and do math and get a take reliably better than all but a handful of them. Why is this interesting, when a handful of people still beat the math? Because we want something that can be applied prospectively and reliably. If John Smith from Townsville was the highest scoring participant, it matters a lot whether he's a genius who can see the future, or if he just got lucky. Part of the goal of this contest was to figure that out. To figure out if the most reliable way to determine the future was to trust one identifiable guy, to trust some mathematical aggregation across guys, or something else. Here's how it goes: in January 2023, I asked people to predict fifty questions about the upcoming year, like "Will Joe Biden be the leading candidate in the Democratic primary?" in the form of a probability (eg "90% chance"). About 3300 of you kindly took me up on that ("Blind Mode"). https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/who-predicted-2023

All right, let's do this again. Write a review of a book. There's no official word count requirement, but previous finalists and winners were often between 2,000 and 10,000 words. There's no official recommended style, but check the style of last year's finalists and winners or my ACX book reviews (1, 2, 3) if you need inspiration. Please limit yourself to one entry per person or team. Then send me your review through this Google Form. The form will ask for your name, email, the title of the book, and a link to a Google Doc. The Google Doc should have your review exactly as you want me to post it if you're a finalist. DON'T INCLUDE YOUR NAME OR ANY HINT ABOUT YOUR IDENTITY IN THE GOOGLE DOC ITSELF, ONLY IN THE FORM. I want to make this contest as blinded as possible, so I'm going to hide that column in the form immediately and try to judge your docs on their merit. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-contest-rules-2024

[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.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-february-2024

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/less-utilitarian-than-thou

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/who-does-polygenic-selection-help

[Original posts: Contra The Atlantic On Polyamory (subscriber only), You Don't Hate Polyamory, You Hate People Who Write Books] 1: Comments I Can Respond To With Something Resembling Actual Statistics 2: Comments I Will Argue Against Despite Not Having Statistics, Sorry 3: Comments By People With Personal Anecdotes 4: Comments On Children 5: Other Comments https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-polyamory

AI forecasters come of age / Prediction market reality TV dating show? / OpenAI's Sora https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mantic-monday-21924

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/x-fact-check-does-gender-integration

Libertarians don't really have their own holiday. Communists have May Day. The woke have MLK's birthday. Nationalists have July 4th or their local equivalent. But libertarians have nothing. I propose Valentine's Day. The way people think about love is the last relic of the way that libertarians think about everything. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/love-and-liberty

I. Sam Altman wants $7 trillion. In one sense, this isn't news. Everyone wants $7 trillion. I want $7 trillion. I'm not going to get it, and Sam Altman probably won't either. Still, the media treats this as worthy of comment, and I agree. It's a useful reminder of what it will take for AI to scale in the coming years. The basic logic: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/sam-altman-wants-7-trillion

Thanks to everyone who participated in ACX Grants, whether as an applicant, an evaluator, or a funder. The best part of ACX Grants is telling the winners they won, which I'll do in a moment. The worst part of ACX Grants is telling the non-winners they didn't win. If I wasn't able to give you a grant, it doesn't mean I hate your project. Sometimes I couldn't find the right evaluator to confirm that you were legit. Sometimes I sent your project to foundations or VCs who I thought it would be a better match for, or wanted to leave it as a test case for the impact market. Most of the time, I just didn't have enough money1, and I spent what I had according to my own imperfect priorities. (In particular, I wasn't able to fully evaluate several AI alignment grants and had to pass on them; if this is you, consider applying to OpenAI's Superalignment Fast Grants before February 18.) If your name is below, you should have received an email with further information. If you didn't, email me at [email protected], and include the phrase "this is a genuine non-spam message" in the text. Unless my email specifically mentioned you as an exception, Manifund will be handling payments and you'll hear from them soon. This year's winners are: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/acx-grants-results-2024

We've been gradually working our way through the conversation around E. Fuller Torrey's concerns about schizophrenia genetics - last week we had It's Fair To Describe Schizophrenia As Probably Mostly Genetic, the week before Unintuitive Properties Of Polygenic Disorders. Here are two more arguments Torrey makes that we haven't gotten to: Studies have failed to find any schizophrenia genes of large effect. If schizophrenia is genetic, it must be caused of thousands of genes, hidden in the most obscure corners of the genome, each with effects too small to detect with current technology. This seems less like the sort of thing that happens naturally, and more like the sort of thing you would claim if you wanted to make your theory untestable. Schizophrenia is bad for fitness, so if it were genetic, evolution would have eliminated those genes. In the comments of the Unintuitive Properties post, Michael Roe points out that one of these mysteries solves the other: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/evolution-explains-polygenic-structure

I. Yesterday I criticized The Atlantic's recent invective against polyamory (subscriber-only post, sorry). Today I want to zoom away from the specific bad arguments and examine the overall form of the article. The overall form was: "I read a memoir about polyamory, everyone involved seemed awful and unhappy, and now I hate polyamorous people." This is a common pattern. Sometimes, if someone's very careful, they read three or four books about polyamory. Everyone in all the books is awful and unhappy. Then they conclude they hate polyamorous people. But this is an unfair generalization. They should hate people who write books. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/you-dont-hate-polyamory-you-hate

Famous schizophrenia researcher E. Fuller Torrey recently wrote a paper trying to cast doubt on whether schizophrenia is really genetic. His exact argument is complicated, but I feel like it sort of equivocates between "the studies showing that schizophrenia are genetic are wrong" and "the studies are right, but in a philosophical sense we shouldn't describe it as 'mostly genetic'". Awais Aftab makes a clearer version of the philosophical argument. He's not especially interested in debating the studies. But he says that even if the studies are right and schizophrenia is 80% heritable, we shouldn't call it a genetic disease. He says: Heritability is "biologically vacuous" (Matthews & Turkheimer, 2022), and I think we would be better off if more of us hesitated to assert that schizophrenia is a "genetic disorder" based predominantly on heritability estimates. I think about questions like these through the lens of avoiding isolated demands for rigor. There are always complicated ways that any statement is false. So the question is never whether a statement is perfectly true in every sense. It's what happens when we treat it fairly, using the same normal criteria we use for everything else. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/its-fair-to-describe-schizophrenia

I. Recently Claudine Gay resigned as President of Harvard over plagiarism accusations and a fumbled Congressional testimony on anti-Semitism. The plagiarism was discovered by conservative journalists Chris Rufo and Chris Brunet. It would be quite a coincidence for them to find it at exactly the moment Gay was already under attack for her anti-Semitism testimony. More likely, they either: Found it a while ago, and kept it in reserve for a time when Gay was in the news Or were angry about Gay's testimony, looked for dirt on her, and found it. I think this is obvious to everyone, but I hadn't seen anyone make it explicit, and I think it should be. I'm not criticizing Rufo and Brunet. Investigative journalism is important, they found a real scandal, and they have every right to bring it to light. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/seems-like-targeting