What are some resources for doing their own GPR that is longer than the couple months recommended in this 80k article but shorter than a lifetime's worth of work as a GP researcher?
I couldn't agree more. I anticipate there is information value in including more moderate perspectives too. EA is a small bubble and interacting with the rest of the world should help us to better understand how to communicate (especially with policy makers who have to consider the opinions of the electorate, a.k.a. "normal people")
I found this essay to be a refreshing take from the usual analysis longtermists hold. I hope this writing inspires more discussion in the EA space on the fundamental nature of transformative technologies and the capacity of the community to realistically anticipate the value change over the coming millennia if not century.
To play a devil's advocate though, I would not discount current longtermist policies altogether. There is a non-negligible chance that transformative technologies might not see mass adoption for a long time. The plans may be contributing to a body of knowledge which future institutions may adopt through an iterative process. If the systems improve welfare prior to a paradigmatic shift, it may not be entirely meaningless.
Another counterpoint might be that these transformative technologies might in fact enhance planning capabilities. This would likely occur if transformative technologies saw consolidation by a small group, which I find unfavorable. Nonetheless, a small group may theoretically apply those technologies to provide robust enough systems that improve the long run future.
I have not thought too seriously on the above issues, so I suspect there are many reasonable counterpoints. I suppose my only request is to not treat contemporary longtermists too uncharitably given the same uncertainty that underpins these theoretical arguments.
I realize the above was more or less advocated for in the paper when it writes on the adoption of these technologies.
I'm curious what advice people have for confused undergraduates. It often feels as if the majority of the career advice is targeted to people who already show promising potential in one form or another, however some people like me might find it especially difficult to figure out their aptitudes and interests at an early level.
I dropped out of high school at some point and was somewhat of a delinquent. I used to do pretty well across the board back in middle school, but I don't think that gives much insight (middle school is not that difficult). My state tests also showed that when I applied myself I similarly did well across a variety of domains. The GED was straight forward and I'd received good test scores without the need to study (but the GED is not too difficult either). I don't have any actual skills. No programming, no handywork, maybe a modest bit of communication and people skills as I continue to work in customer service, but not much else. I don't even really recall most of my studies. I'm not exactly sure how I passed the GED.
Now I'm trying to figure out practical steps to explore and build up something. But it's especially difficult for me to figure out what to prioritize at this moment. There are so many things I want to learn, (not even necessarily for an impactful career, but rather in and of itself) yet I only have so much time and so much money to explore my interests. And I'm feeling like I might be running low on the later.
How am I supposed to balance my time and still be "effective"? How do I go on about and choose what I ought to do? Do I spend extra time at school and be extra active in extracurricular, student organizations, and non academic groups simply spreading myself out in order to find some promising paths? Is there any opportunity for people like me to work at one of these Effective Altruism organizations given the extremely competitive talent pool that hiring managers are fishing from?
I've been really interested to get more personal advising, but I've put the application process on hold for a while. Writing it out like this helps to calm my nerves down somewhat. But yeah, I feel like I'm in a hard spot and not sure how to proceed going forward.
Also I apologize if the writing comes across as messy. I haven't been taking as good a care of myself as I probably ought to.
To be a good ancestor it requires the current generation to dedicate a portion of our efforts in to understanding the values of potential future beings. This is incredibly hard, but also crucial for creating interventions that makes a positive social impact.
As we aim to predict further in time, the more uncertain the impact of our actions become. It is reasonable that we give ourselves leniency in forecasting the far future.
I'm not sure what kind of research would be best for understanding the value of future generations. It seems to me, a key assumption of longtermist thinking is that future generations will have somewhat similar values to out current ones. I am not so sure this is to be the case if humans were, for example, genetically modified, become digital beings, or something else altogether. I'm not so certain whether those futures are possible, but I think it is important to keep in mind when trying to make a positive impact into the future.
Where does our duty to the future end? I feel as if the best I can do is make some rounded estimates on my future impact and examine those assessments after significant changes in the information I posses.
It is also difficult to maintain such a far reaching perspective of my actions. Sometimes I wonder if all of that time were better spent simply investigating rather than letting my mind wonder. Writing that though, I think it is best to find a balance between investigative and speculative thinking. It'd be very difficult to be effective if I didn't let myself ponder on more unusual ideas.
Survival doesn't in and of itself amount to a meaningful life. Generally, there ought to be a sweet spot between the two. If taken to the extreme, all resources that do not contribute to the subsistence of life is wasted. I don't agree that we ought to live that way, and I think most people would support that conclusion.
What are some resources for doing their own GPR that is longer than the couple months recommended in this 80k article but shorter than a lifetime's worth of work as a GP researcher?
I couldn't agree more. I anticipate there is information value in including more moderate perspectives too. EA is a small bubble and interacting with the rest of the world should help us to better understand how to communicate (especially with policy makers who have to consider the opinions of the electorate, a.k.a. "normal people")
I found this essay to be a refreshing take from the usual analysis longtermists hold. I hope this writing inspires more discussion in the EA space on the fundamental nature of transformative technologies and the capacity of the community to realistically anticipate the value change over the coming millennia if not century.
To play a devil's advocate though, I would not discount current longtermist policies altogether. There is a non-negligible chance that transformative technologies might not see mass adoption for a long time. The plans may be contributing to a body of knowledge which future institutions may adopt through an iterative process. If the systems improve welfare prior to a paradigmatic shift, it may not be entirely meaningless.Another counterpoint might be that these transformative technologies might in fact enhance planning capabilities. This would likely occur if transformative technologies saw consolidation by a small group, which I find unfavorable. Nonetheless, a small group may theoretically apply those technologies to provide robust enough systems that improve the long run future.I have not thought too seriously on the above issues, so I suspect there are many reasonable counterpoints. I suppose my only request is to not treat contemporary longtermists too uncharitably given the same uncertainty that underpins these theoretical arguments.I realize the above was more or less advocated for in the paper when it writes on the adoption of these technologies.
I'm curious what advice people have for confused undergraduates. It often feels as if the majority of the career advice is targeted to people who already show promising potential in one form or another, however some people like me might find it especially difficult to figure out their aptitudes and interests at an early level.
I dropped out of high school at some point and was somewhat of a delinquent. I used to do pretty well across the board back in middle school, but I don't think that gives much insight (middle school is not that difficult). My state tests also showed that when I applied myself I similarly did well across a variety of domains. The GED was straight forward and I'd received good test scores without the need to study (but the GED is not too difficult either). I don't have any actual skills. No programming, no handywork, maybe a modest bit of communication and people skills as I continue to work in customer service, but not much else. I don't even really recall most of my studies. I'm not exactly sure how I passed the GED.
Now I'm trying to figure out practical steps to explore and build up something. But it's especially difficult for me to figure out what to prioritize at this moment. There are so many things I want to learn, (not even necessarily for an impactful career, but rather in and of itself) yet I only have so much time and so much money to explore my interests. And I'm feeling like I might be running low on the later.
How am I supposed to balance my time and still be "effective"? How do I go on about and choose what I ought to do? Do I spend extra time at school and be extra active in extracurricular, student organizations, and non academic groups simply spreading myself out in order to find some promising paths? Is there any opportunity for people like me to work at one of these Effective Altruism organizations given the extremely competitive talent pool that hiring managers are fishing from?
I've been really interested to get more personal advising, but I've put the application process on hold for a while. Writing it out like this helps to calm my nerves down somewhat. But yeah, I feel like I'm in a hard spot and not sure how to proceed going forward.
Also I apologize if the writing comes across as messy. I haven't been taking as good a care of myself as I probably ought to.
To be a good ancestor it requires the current generation to dedicate a portion of our efforts in to understanding the values of potential future beings. This is incredibly hard, but also crucial for creating interventions that makes a positive social impact.
As we aim to predict further in time, the more uncertain the impact of our actions become. It is reasonable that we give ourselves leniency in forecasting the far future.
I'm not sure what kind of research would be best for understanding the value of future generations. It seems to me, a key assumption of longtermist thinking is that future generations will have somewhat similar values to out current ones. I am not so sure this is to be the case if humans were, for example, genetically modified, become digital beings, or something else altogether. I'm not so certain whether those futures are possible, but I think it is important to keep in mind when trying to make a positive impact into the future.
Where does our duty to the future end? I feel as if the best I can do is make some rounded estimates on my future impact and examine those assessments after significant changes in the information I posses.
It is also difficult to maintain such a far reaching perspective of my actions. Sometimes I wonder if all of that time were better spent simply investigating rather than letting my mind wonder. Writing that though, I think it is best to find a balance between investigative and speculative thinking. It'd be very difficult to be effective if I didn't let myself ponder on more unusual ideas.
Survival doesn't in and of itself amount to a meaningful life. Generally, there ought to be a sweet spot between the two. If taken to the extreme, all resources that do not contribute to the subsistence of life is wasted. I don't agree that we ought to live that way, and I think most people would support that conclusion.