EA Forum Bot Site
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
Dacyn1
0
0

2\uparrow^n 2 =4, for any n, though.

Reply
See in context
by ABlank
2 min read 1

12

April Fools' Day
Personal Blog

The epistemic practice of the ancient Persians was to contemplate matters of great importance twice: First while drunk and then while sober. My personal fit is to specialize in phase one of this process.

 

The EA community has discussed electron welfare before[1], but we've been neglecting an important crux. In 1940, physicist John Archibald Wheeler proposed the idea that all electrons are really a single electron travelling forward and backward in time.

A single electron experience(s/d)[2] the combined lifetimes of every electron across all spacetime. This adds up to roughly  years[3]. This means that improving the single electron's welfare is the most longtermist cause area yet discovered.[4]

When people dismiss concerns about electron welfare, it's because of scope insensitivity[5] and the identifiable victim effect. But if there's only one electron — a single pale blue dot — its importance is much more salient. To help people[6] care more about the electron's welfare, i propose that we name it Ellie.[7]

Past discussion of electron welfare has been dominated by negative utilitarians concerned with electron suffering. Such attitudes are based in long-standing anti-electron bias ultimately rooted in Ben Franklin's arbitrary decision to label their charge negative. Just because the electron is negatively charged doesn't mean we should charge it with being inherently negative. Ellie wants to live.

 

We can increase Ellie's lifespan (as measured in ELYs — electron life years) by doing things that, from our frame of reference, look like creating new electrons. These include

  • Shooting high-energy gamma rays into metal to create electron-positron pairs
  • Freeing neutrons so that they fall apart
  • Creating large amounts of beta radioactive isotopes using fission reactors[8]
  • Work with chip manufacturers to develop semiconductors with fewer electron holes[9]

It's also possible that research into double beta decay could allow us to produce twice as many ELYs.

Additionally, to keep the electron from feeling bored, we should build solar panels that put Ellie in an excited state.

 

We need a new branch of EA dedicated to the Electron Life Lengthening and Improvement (ELLI) space. I've already designed an original logo (Figure 1) for this new movement.

Figure 1

Light bulbs are a common place for the electron to hang out, the heart represents how we feel about Ellie, and it's blue because electrons are blue.[10]

 

Bayesian prior on asked questions

Should we build an AI that's programmed to maximize electron welfare?

That depends on how much Ellie would enjoy powering the AI's circuits. We can't know for sure, but it sounds pretty fun.

I'm not a utilitarian. What's the most effective way to pursue alternative axiologies (for Ellie's benefit, of course)?

There's a wide variety of ways to contribute to electron freedom.

The single-electron postulate says that positrons are Ellie moving backwards in time. What should we do with them?

The crux of this question is whether hedonic valence has even or odd time reversal symmetry. It's possible that feeling good while moving backwards in time feels like feeling bad, which would imply that we should torture positrons.

  1. ^

    coincidentally, on this exact day of the year

  2. ^

    due to time travel, the tense of this verb is undefined

  3. ^

    unlike traditional cosmology, where the error bar is in the exponent, the utility at stake here is so vast that the error bar is in the number of Knuth up arrows.

  1. ^

    but only because we're still a positive integer number of years away from discovering electron welfare meta-charity

  2. ^

    not to be confused with emotional insensitivity to the contents of an oscilloscope, of which they are also guilty

  3. ^

    by which i mean donors

  4. ^

    or hire Naming What We Can to provide it a cuteness-maximizing name

  5. ^

    or fission weapons? TODO consider instrumental value of humanity

  6. ^

    though this could potentially hinder AI progress

  7. ^

    as everyone knows

Show all footnotes

12

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments1


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Dacyn1
0
0

2\uparrow^n 2 =4, for any n, though.

Reply
More from ABlank
44
Pareto-Distributed Opportunities Imply Isoelastic Utility
ABlank
· · 3m read
7
7
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
Although some of the jokes are inevitably tasteless, and Zorrilla is used to set up punchlines, I enjoyed it and it will surely increase concerns and donations for shrimp. I'm not sure what impression the audience will have of EA in general.  Last week The Daily Show interviewed Rutger Bregman about his new book Moral Ambition (which includes a profile of Zorrilla and SWP). 
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
Americans, we need your help to stop a dangerous AI bill from passing the Senate. What’s going on? * The House Energy & Commerce Committee included a provision in its reconciliation bill that would ban AI regulation by state and local governments for the next 10 years. * Several states have led the way in AI regulation while Congress has dragged its heels. * Stopping state governments from regulating AI might be okay, if we could trust Congress to meaningfully regulate it instead. But we can’t. This provision would destroy state leadership on AI and pass the responsibility to a Congress that has shown little interest in seriously preventing AI danger. * If this provision passes the Senate, we could see a DECADE of inaction on AI. * This provision also violates the Byrd Rule, a Senate rule which is meant to prevent non-budget items from being included in the reconciliation bill.   What can I do? Here are 3 things you can do TODAY, in order of priority: 1. (5 minutes) Call and email both of your Senators. Tell them you oppose AI preemption, and ask them to raise a point of order that preempting state AI regulation violates the Byrd Rule. * Find your Senators here. * Here’s an example of a call:  “Hello, my name is {YOUR NAME} and I’m a resident of {YOUR STATE}. The newest budget reconciliation bill includes a 10-year ban pre-empting state AI legislation without establishing any federal guardrails. This is extremely concerning to me – leading experts warn us that AI could cause mass harm within the next few years, but this provision would prevent states from protecting their citizens from AI crises for the next decade. It also violates the Byrd Rule, since preempting state AI regulation doesn’t impact federal taxes or spending. I’d like the Senator to speak out against this provision and raise a point of order that this provision should not be included under the Byrd Rule.” See here for sample call + email temp
Relevant opportunities
132
[urgent] Americans: call your Senators and tell them you oppose AI preemption
2 authors
· · 2m read
16
16
111
$100,000 bounty for finding >$1M in legal and collaborative corporate donation matching opportunities
3 authors
· · 4m read
3
3
8
New Senior Opening at LEEP: Chief of Staff (to the Program Director)
Tatiana K. Nesic Skuratova
· · 5m read
0
0
View more