Results for “hanania”
48 found

Richard Hanania on AGI risk

To me, the biggest problem with the doomerist position is that it assumes that there aren’t seriously diminishing returns to intelligence. There are other potential problems too, but this one is the first that stands out to me…

Another way you can have diminishing returns is if a problem is so hard that more intelligence doesn’t get you much. Let’s say that the question is “how can the US bring democracy to China?” It seems to me that there is some benefit to more intelligence, that someone with an IQ of 120 is going to say something more sensible than someone with an IQ of 80. But I’m not sure a 160 IQ gets you more than a 120 IQ. Same if you’re trying to predict what world GDP will be in 2250. The problem is too hard.

One can imagine problems that are so difficult that intelligence is completely irrelevant at any level. Let’s say your goal is “make Xi Jinping resign as the leader of China, move to America, and make it his dream to play cornerback for the Kansas City Chiefs.” The probability of this happening is literally zero, and no amount of intelligence, at least on the scales we’re used to, is going to change that.

I tend to think for most problems in the universe, there are massive diminishing returns to intelligence, either because they are too easy or too hard.

Recommended, and largely I agree.  This is of course a Hayekian point as well.  Here is the full discussion.  From a “talent” perspective, I would add the following.  The very top performers, such as Lebron, often are not tops at any single aspect of the game.  Lebron has not been the best shooter, rebounder,  passer, or whatever (well, he is almost the top passer), rather it is about how he integrates all of his abilities into a coherent whole.  I think of AGI (which I don’t think will happen, either) as comparable to a basketball player who is the best in the league at free throws or rebounds.

Richard Hanania interviews me

78 minutes.  With transcript.  It starts off as a normal “talent conversation,” but soon takes other paths.  We discuss feminization in some detail, libertarianism too.  Here is part of Richard’s summary:

Another one of Tyler’s traits that came out in this conversation is his detached skepticism regarding fashionable intellectual trends. For example, I’d taken it for granted that social media has made elite culture more pessimistic and angry, but his answer when I asked about the topic made me reconsider my view.

Interesting throughout, and here is one excerpt:

Tyler: It seems to me social media are probably bad for 12- to 14-year-old girls, and probably good for most of the rest of us. That would be my most intuitive answer, but very subject to revision.

Richard: I think it’s good. I mean, I think it’s good for me…

Tyler: But they’re bad for a lot of academics. I guess, they get classified in…

Richard: They might be at the…

Tyler: They get lumped in with the 12 to 14-year-old girls, right?

Richard: [laughs] There might be a similarity there.

Tyler: They have something in common.

Recommended.

Richard Hanania on safety craziness

There are other complications too; some people are just low IQ, and maybe their dumb beliefs aren’t their fault. But if you believe in personal responsibility at all as a guide to policy, for reasons of utilitarianism or justice, you have to assess blame at some point. Incentivizing people to get free vaccinations is not the same as incentivizing those with IQs of 100 to be astrophysicists, or poor people to buy Teslas; this is clearly in the realm of possible, and mostly involves overcoming motivated reasoning and laziness. COVID-19 rates of infection vary across time, likely because people change their behavior depending on how much spread there is in their community, and there is nothing to indicate that the unvaccinated are incapable of considering costs and benefits at all when it comes to the decision over whether to get vaccinated. This means that private sector mandates are therefore an unalloyed good, as I’ve pointed out before, and Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for standing in their way, as they have in certain states.

…Unfortunately, we live under a government, and particularly a public health community, that can’t do cost-benefit analysis, and doesn’t have the stomach for personal responsibility either. So we’re going to have an entire generation robbed of a normal childhood, and perhaps other restrictions too that will remain permanent. The question is how we will deal with COVID-19 now that we know it will never go away

Here is his Substack link, recommended.

Thursday assorted links

1. “Conservatives share a terrible epistemological ecosystem, where false claims go viral much more often.

2. How to model the Putin interview.

3. What really happened with the Hugo Awards?

4. In this one study, wage subsidies have a pass-through rate of about 28%.

5. When it comes to Ontario, the world is waking up.

6. Bard is now Gemini.  And a quick overview here.  And here is Zvi on Gemini.  And Ethan Mollick.

*The Origins of Woke*

That is the new Richard Hanania book, with the subtitle Civil Rights Law, Corporate America, and the Triumph of Identity Politics, and it is coming out next week.  There are complex “Pierre Menard-like” issues surrounding the work at this point, and at the moment I don’t have the time or energy to sort through them.  I can tell you however that I liked the book.

Can the School Choice Movement Liberate Childhood?

Richard Hanania has a very good post on the rapidly expanding school choice movement and his hopes for a radical rethinking of education.

The first thing to point out about public education is that it involves an extreme restriction of liberty beyond anything we usually accept. How common is it for government to force you to be in a certain place at a certain time? What I call “time-place” mandates are rare. Sometimes you have to go to the DMV, but even then you spend a short amount of time there, and can generally choose when to go. Sometimes people have to respond to subpoenas or jury duty, but those are uncommon events in most people’s lives. Government says to do your taxes, though you only have a deadline and can fill out the paperwork whenever and under whatever conditions you want.

The only substantial populations of individuals who have their lives structured according to time-place mandates in a free society like ours are prisoners, members of the military, and children. The mandates for children have gotten less strict over the years now that all states allow homeschooling, but opponents of school choice for all practical purposes want to do what they can to shape the incentive structures of parents so that they all use public schools (liberal reformers tend to like vouchers that can be used at charter schools, but not ESAs, which give parents complete control). Of course, children don’t have the freedom of adults, and so others are by default in control of how they spend most of their time. But it’s usually parents, not the government, that we trust in this role. Given the unusual degree to which public education infringes on individual liberty and family autonomy, the burden of proof has to be on those in favor of maintaining such an extreme institution.

…To me, the true promise of the school choice movement isn’t that it might simply save a bit of money or avoid the worst excesses of public education. Rather, it presents an opportunity to rethink childhood…On what basis did we as a society decide that the ideal way to spend a childhood was to attend government institutions 5 days a week, 7 hours a day, 9 months a year, for 12 years? That most of that time should be spent sitting at a desk, with say one hour for lunch and one for recess?

My hope is that states with universal ESAs will see radical experimentation. Maybe some parents would send their kids to a traditional school for six months of the year, and then have them apprenticing or interning in the workforce the rest of the time. Imagine having a few months experience working at a law firm during eighth grade, grabbing coffee for corporate executives in ninth grade, following around a pipe fitter in tenth grade, and helping around a gym in eleventh grade.

I too would like to see radical experimentation in education but I’m struck by how conservative and homogeneous schools are, regardless of their public or private status. Private schools, despite having the autonomy, have not pioneered novel teaching methods. Montessori was innovative but that was a hundred years ago. A few private schools have adopted Direct Instruction, but how many offer lessons in memory palaces, mental arithmetic or increasing creativity?

I am enthusiastic about developments coming out of Elon Musk’s school and Minerva but it’s still remarkable how similar almost all private schools are to almost all public schools. The global adoption of a nearly identical education model is also disturbing, as I harbor significant skepticism that we’ve reached an optimum. I see this as more of an outcome of world-elite consensus, similar to what we saw with COVID policy, with basically only Sweden bucking the trend and coming under intense pressure for doing so.

Online education and AI ought to greatly expand the potential range of experimentation but the demand for experimentation appears to be low.

Hanania has more of interest to say. Read the whole thing.

Thursday assorted links

1. A critical history of the AI safety movement.

2. Richard Hanania on class-based affirmative action.

3. James J. Lee comment on the new Greg Clark results.

4. Emily Wilson on different Iliad translations, and her new one (NYT).

5. What happened to the global corporate tax rate deal?

6. People who make money running YouTube channels showing how much they lose by playing slot machines (WSJ).

Monday assorted links

1. What Midjourney thinks professors look like, depending on department.  Will convince any AI doubter!

2. EU craziness on AI regulation, including extraterritoriality.

3. Podcast on alignment: Leopold Aschenbrenner and Richard Hanania.

4. Is our universe inside a black hole? (speculative)

5. Good CEOs moving from the UK to the U.S., in part for higher pay (FT).

6. New hypotheses on why mark-ups have been increasing.

Monday assorted links

1. Conservatives often win their battles.

2. Some Afro-Surinamese music.

3. Vyacheslav Dvornikov interviews me (in Russian).  And a related piece (in English) on Russia moving toward dependence on China.

4. “A simple heuristic of only judging the level of detail in the message consistently allowed people to discriminate lies from truths.

5. Small teams vs. large teams.

6. KnowledgeOnaChip.

7. “The second hitman then subcontracted to another hitman, who then subcontracted to a fourth, who gave the job to a fifth.

Are social media making us miserable?

Stuart Richie rebuts some of the recent studies:

And here’s the thing: when the authors of the “Facebook arrival” study raised their standards in this way, running a correction for multiple comparisons, all the results they found for well-being were no longer statistically significant. That is, a somewhat more conservative way of looking at the data indicated that every result they found was statistically indistinguishable from a scenario where Facebook had no effect on well-being whatsoever.

Now let’s turn to the second study, which was a randomised controlled trial where 1,637 adults were randomly assigned to shut down their Facebook account for four weeks, or go on using it as normal. Let’s call it the “deactivating Facebook” study. This “famous” study has been described as “the most impressive by far” in this area, and was the only study cited in the Financial Times as an example of the “growing body of research showing that reducing time on social media improves mental health”.

The bottom-line result was that leaving Facebook for a month led to higher well-being, as measured on a questionnaire at the end of the month. But again, looking in a bit more detail raises some important questions.

First, the deactivation happened in the weeks leading up to the 2018 US midterm elections. This was quite deliberate, because the researchers also wanted to look at how Facebook affected people’s political polarisation. But it does mean that the results they found might not apply to deactivating Facebook at other, less fractious times – maybe it’s particularly good to be away from Facebook during an election, when you can avoid hearing other people’s daft political opinions.

Second, just like the other Facebook study, the researchers tested a lot of hypotheses – and again, they used a correction to reduce false-positives. This time, the results weren’t wiped out entirely – but almost. Of the four questionnaire items that showed statistically-significant results before the correction, only one – “how lonely are you?” – remained significant after correction.

It’s debatable whether even this result would survive the researchers corrected for all the other statistical tests they ran. Not only that, but they also ran a second model, controlling for the overall amount of time people used Facebook, and this found even fewer results than the first one.

Third, as well as the well-being questionnaire at the end of the study, the participants got daily text messages asking them how happy they were, among other questions. Oddly, these showed absolutely no effect of being off Facebook – and not even the slightest hint of a trend in that direction.

Here is the entire piece, which is well thought out.

Tuesday assorted links

1. Is the human brain just a matter of scale?  For a while now, I’ve thought that whales might be smarter than we are.  And how do sperm whales talk to each other?

2. North Korean missile silo developments.

3. Gavin Leech surveys the “insane” who have blogged a lot and for a long time.

4. Robin Hanson isn’t afraid (with Richard Hanania).

5. “Can we improve how we identify and develop mathematical talent among youth? With generous support from @AgencyFund, we’re excited to launch a new one-year dissertation fellowship for up to four PhD students in economics or economics-adjacent fields on this topic.”  From Heidi Williams.

6. A report on Próspera, by Próspera.

7. Group of very smart (but largely non-elite) economists write an open letter to Jeffrey Sachs.  #contrast