I once befriended a crow I trained him to come when called and he’d follow me around the neighborhood. But then one day . . . there were two of him. And I realized. . . I’m totally speciesist about crows! I can’t tell them apart at all! So it’s more correct to say “I once befriended some number of crows” I had originally wanted to train the local sparrows and robins to come when I sang, cause I thought that would be a really interesting party trick. Turns out crows are smarter than sparrows, so they cottoned on faster that if I made a certain call, they'd get food. So instead of looking like a Disney princess, I ended up looking like a witch. Which, you know, honestly, I don't totally mind. Read more: All
0 Comments
“The difference between nuclear arms treaties and AI treaties is that it’s so easy to copy AIs, so regulation is hopeless” This is only true for existing models. Inventing new, state of the art models is incredibly difficult and expensive. It requires immense amounts of talent, infrastructure, money, compute, and innovations that people don’t yet know how to do. Almost all of the human extinction risk from AIs come from not-yet-invented superintelligent AI models. North Korea or a terrorist group cannot just defect from an AI treaty and build superintelligent AI. And it’s relatively straightforward to monitor and prevent the amount of compute necessary to make a superintelligent AI (e.g. monitoring electrical grids, specialized GPUs, satellite imagery, etc) Once it’s already invented, then yes, people could easily steal it. But if we just stop sometime 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 we have superintelligent AI, then it will be very hard for any group to defect. Also, by the time we superintelligent AI, it’s probably already too late, and it will be up to the superintelligence what to do, not humans anymore. Read more: All "What’s going on with all these CEOs who drastically change their appearance over time?" It's nerds instrumentally converging on looks being useful They start off typical nerds, with no intrinsic drive to look good. So they start off at the bottom of their potential attractiveness As they understand the world more, they realize they can achieve more of any goal they want if they look good, so they actually start putting in effort, which leads to massive improvements They eventually stabilize at the most attractive they can look given base genetics It's just especially noticeable because they start off super low cause they don't care Most people, like politicians or celebrities, cared before they had fame and money, so they can't improve as much. There's diminishing returns to trying to improve your looks. Speaking as a nerd who went through this exact pattern. Read more: All Nerds often fall into the trap of thinking that caring about your looks is somehow unethical. “People shouldn’t care about what I look like! They should just like me for me and evaluate my ideas purely on their merit” I used to fall into this camp, but now believe this is misguided. Here’s what changed my mind:
1) 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞’𝐬 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞. What somebody looks like, especially their fashion, contains a 𝘭𝘰𝘵 of information about them. I remember once a rationalist event organizer was proposing that people have special bracelets where different beads signalled different things (e.g. romantic availability, open to talking vs not, etc) and I laughed so hard. That’s what clothing already does! It’s just that some people are blind to its messaging, either on purpose or because of a lack of skill. Imagine somebody wearing full hippie garb, including multi-color dreadlocks, an amethyst necklace, and a tattoo of chakras down his arm. Imagine he tells you that he read a study saying that there’s a dangerous chemical in the water. Imagine you hear the same thing, but from a man in traditional academic garb of comfortable shoes, slacks, button-up top, sweater, with short undyed hair. It is perfectly reasonable to put more credence on the academic-looking man over the hippie-looking man when it comes to studies about chemicals in the water. Of course, if they share the study and you have the time and inclination to look into it, you should evaluate the study based on its own merits, not the merits of who shared it with you. But also, the probability that you 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 look into it more is also dependent on the person who shared it with you. I have a bunch of hippie friends who I love dearly but whose epistemics are so broken that it would be very hard for them to get me to look into any of their theories because I think it’s just too likely to be wrong and a waste of my time. This only applies to people you have so far had little exposure to. As you get to know them, you should let that information dominate over fashion. For example, I have some hippie friends with colorful hair who look deeply uncredible to strangers but I happen to know their epistemology is actually pretty good. However, if you think of your friends and followers as following a funnel, where first they have to meet you or see you, decide whether it’s worth getting to know you and listening to your ideas, etc, then you need to care about that top of the funnel. If people just see you in a youtube thumbnail or see your outward appearance at a party and are deciding whether to approach or not, your looks communicate a lot about whether it will be worth their time. And if you have a neckbeard and a fedora or have strangely colored hair and a visible tattoo, people will (often correctly), infer a lot about you. (Interestingly, attractiveness and persuasiveness often come apart here. For example, having multi-colored hair might attract the sort of romantic partner who will like your personality, but is anti-persuasive to the majority of humanity. What I recommend in those sorts of situations is trying to find something that achieves both goals, such as replacing multi-colored hair with a varied wardrobe. Wear eccentric, vibrant clothes at parties, then wear a regular button up on a podcast) Now, this doesn’t mean you should just dress as attractively as possible. It all depends on your goals. Most people have the goal to attract or keep a mate, so attractiveness is a common goal. But there are others. There’s credibility. There’s in-group signalling. There’s comfort and practicality. There’s self-expression. I remember when I first started working on my appearance, and I found a look that was very attractive but didn’t feel like “me” at all, and it was really uncomfortable. I don’t recommend that. I eventually iterated into something that felt like it authentically represented myself to the outside world while also achieving my other goals, such as attractiveness, comfort, low effort, and credibility. All this is to say that fashion, because it’s a choice, conveys a lot of information. You can choose it more deliberately and get better outcomes. 𝟐) 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞’𝐬 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐜𝐚𝐧’𝐭 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 Caring about appearance is to 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 degree cultural. I think our culture is way less shallow than it was in Victorian times. However, we’ve been receiving admonitions from society for ages to care less about appearance and I think we’re as far as we’re going to get. Which makes sense, because fashion does actually provide information. But also, we’re largely visual creatures and have evolved to pay attention to how people attire themselves. We can’t turn it off, even if we wanted to. Like, I think that the vast majority of humans could not take Borat in his banana hammock seriously, no matter how good his points were. If he approached you in a conference to tell you some interesting stats about your favorite field, you’d find it nearly impossible to buy it, no matter how good his ideas were otherwise. 𝟑) 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧’𝐭 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞, 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐯𝐞. Fighting for people to care less about appearances is not a very high impact cause area and fighting it severely hurts your ability to fight for more important and tractable problems. Pick your battles. You can spend the rest of your life having a constant drain on your impact and ability to achieve your goals for probably no benefit, or you can focus on things that matter more. Fashion doesn’t have to take a long time. I limit myself to 5 minutes or less a day, plus once a year or two shopping trip for clothes. Just 80/20 it. Clothing causes “passive beauty” (like passive income, but for looks), where once you buy them, you look better for years afterwards while you wear them. Read more: All Do you live in Berkeley? Are you feeling particularly anxious or depressed? Consider moving to SF or elsewhere. I've heard from so many people that the AI safety community in Berkeley is particularly damaging to mental health. I've only felt depressed about AI safety once & it was when I was in Berkeley for a few weeks. It went away after I left. From what I've heard it seems to be from a mix of:
Remember: you're the average of the 5 people you spend the most time with. You might be depressed or anxious because of objective facts about the world. But you might also be depressed or anxious because you're surrounded by depressed or anxious people I've heard good things about the SF AI safety community. London's EA community was also far less neurotic in my experience than many others. Felt much more balanced and less insular. Read more: All Disclaimer: this will only work for a subset of you. Law of Equal and Opposite Advice and all that. It might only even work for me. This definitely feels like a weird psychological trick that might only work with my brain. I spent my twenties being absolutely devastated by uncertainty. I saw the suffering in the world and I desperately wanted to help, but the more I learned and the more I tried, the wider my confidence intervals got. Maybe I could promote bednets. But what about the meat eater problem? Maybe I could promote veganism? But what about the small animal replacement problem? Even giving out free hugs (the most clearly benign thing I could think of) might cause unexpected trauma for some unknown percentage of the population such that it negates all the positives. It eventually reached a crescendo in 2020 where I sunk into absolute epistemic hopelessness. An RCT had just been published about the intervention I was doing that didn't even show that the intervention didn't work. It was just ambiguous. If at least it had been obviously zero impact, I could have moved on. But it was ambiguous for goodness sake! I actually briefly gave up on altruism. I was going to go be a hippie in the woods and make art and do drugs. After all, if I couldn't know if what I was doing was helping or even hurting, I might as well be happy myself. But then…. I saw something in the news about the suffering in the world. And I wanted to help. No, a part of me said. You can't help, remember? Nothing works. Or you can never tell if it's working. And then another thing showed up in my social media feed…. But no! It wasn’t worth trying because the universe was too complex and I was but a monkey in shoes. But still. . . . another part of me couldn’t look away. It said “Look at the suffering. You can’t possibly see that and not at least try.” I realized in that moment that I couldn’t actually be happy if I wasn’t at least trying. This led to a large breakthrough in how I felt. Before, there was always the possibility of stopping and just having fun. So I was comparing all of the hard work and sacrifice I was doing to this ideal alternative life. When I realized that even if I had basically no hope, I’d still keep trying, this liberated me. There was no alternative life where I wasn’t trying. It felt like the equivalent of burning the ships. No way to go but forward. No temptation of retreat. Many things aren’t bad in and of themselves, but bad compared to something else. If you remove the comparison, then they’re good again. But it wasn’t over yet. I was still deeply uncertain. I went to Rwanda to try to actually get as close to ground truth as possible, while also reading a ton about meta-ethics, to get at the highest level stuff, then covid hit. While I was stuck in lockdown, I realized that I should take the simulation hypothesis seriously. You’d think this would intensify my epistemic nihilism, but it didn’t. It turned me into an epistemic absurdist. Which is basically the same thing, but happy. Even if this is base reality, I’m profoundly uncertain about whether bednets are even net positive. Now you add that this might all be a simulation?!? For real?! (Pun was unintentional but appreciated, so I’m keeping it) This was a blessing in disguise though, because suddenly it went from:
The more certain you feel, the more you feel you can control things, and that leads to feeling more stressed out. As you become more uncertain, it can feel more and more stressful, because there’s an outcome you care about and you’re not sure how to get there. But if you have only very minimal control, you can either freak out more, because it’s out of your control, or you can relax, because it’s out of your control. So I became like the Taoist proverb: "A drunkard falls out of a carriage but doesn't get hurt because they go limp." If somebody walked by a drowning child that would be trivially easy to save, I’d think they were a monster. If somebody walks by a deeply complex situation where getting involved may or may not help and may even accidentally make it worse, but then tries to help anyway, I think they’re a good person and if it doesn’t work out, well, hey, at least they tried. I relaxed into the uncertainty. The uncertainty means I don’t have to be so hard on myself, because it’s just too complicated to really know one way or the other. Nowadays I work in AI safety, and whenever I start feeling anxious about timelines and p(doom), the most reliable way for me to feel better is to remind myself about the deep uncertainty around everything. “Remember, this might all be a simulation. And even if it isn’t, it’s really hard to figure out what’s net positive, so just do something that seems likely to be good, and make sure it’s something you at least enjoy, so no matter what, you’ll at least have had a good life” How can other people apply this? I think this won’t work for most people, but you can try this on and see if it works for you:
Anyways, while I’m sure this won’t work for most people, hopefully some people who are currently struggling in epistemic nihilism might be able to come out the other side and enjoy epistemic absurdism like me. But in the end, who knows? Read more: All You can't just say “epistemic status: garbage” and then hope your words don’t have consequences1/25/2025 You can't just say “epistemic status: garbage” and then hope your words don’t have consequences Especially online, where everything you write is forever and can be damaging a person’s reputation, mental health, and ability to do good until the singularity. This isn’t to say you shouldn’t criticise. But you should publicly criticize when you have decent evidence and arguments, not when it’s just hearsay, vibe, anonymous sources, or any other form of terrible epistemics. Read more: All
Read more: All Publicly Commit to Avoid “Trigger Topics” Action: Identify specific topics that you find particularly enraging but not useful for your work or personal growth. Make a public or semi-public statement that you will refrain from posting or commenting on those issues. How it helps: By drawing a clear boundary around your “no-go” subjects, you reduce the temptation to jump in. Publicly sharing that commitment adds accountability. Keep a “Reply-to-Self” Journal Action: When you feel like venting on a social thread, write it down in a private journal or note-taking app instead—but only as a last resort. How it helps: Gets the frustration out of your system without fueling a public outrage cycle. Use this sparingly if you find it reinforces negative thought loops. Curate Your Feed Aggressively Action: Unfollow or mute people/hashtags/topics that frequently post content you find enraging or distracting. If someone mixes valuable insights with occasional outrage-bait, consider clicking hide/see less only on their triggering posts How it helps: You’ll see fewer triggers for heated arguments—while still keeping a connection to those who sometimes share useful information. Hide or Block Posts/Threads Proactively Action: As soon as you see a thread that riles you up, use the platform’s “Hide Post” or “Block Thread” feature if available. How it helps: Removes the temptation to keep checking replies or re-reading enraging content. Set a Personal “No-Weigh-In” Trigger Action: Define a mental or written rule, for example, “If this topic is purely sensational or if it’s feeding on drama, I will not weigh in.” The moment you notice it hits that threshold, disengage. How it helps: By labeling certain trending controversies as “no-weigh-in” zones, you spare yourself the aggravation and maintain focus on more meaningful discussions. Wait & Reflect Before Reading Comments Action: When you encounter a potentially heated post, wait until you’ve read or skimmed other unrelated content first. Then decide if you still want to see the comments. If you do, read them to observe, not necessarily to engage. How it helps: Adds a buffer of distance. Often, the initial flare of outrage subsides, making you less tempted to argue. Adopt a “1 Comment” or “No Comment” Rule Action: If you feel compelled to respond, allow yourself only one comment. Avoid follow-ups and do not check replies. How it helps: Short-circuits never-ending debates. You say your piece and then disengage. Practice the “Pause Before Reply” Technique Action: After you read something enraging, wait at least three minutes before writing a response. During those three minutes, keep scrolling or switch apps—do anything else. Then decide if it’s truly worth replying. How it helps: A short pause often calms the urge to comment. You can more rationally decide if it’s worth the mental energy. Set Boundaries with Friends/Followers Action: Post or pin a statement on your profile such as: “I’m here to share my work and insights. I won’t be engaging in lengthy debates.” How it helps: Lets your community know you’re deliberately avoiding arguments. You’ll feel less pressured to respond to provocations. Implement a “3 Good Posts” Rule Action: Before you close your social feed, find three positive or constructive posts and engage with them by liking, sharing, or commenting encouragingly. How it helps: Rewires your usage toward seeking out positivity. Algorithms learn from your engagement, so liking and commenting on good content can shift what you see over time. Create a Pre-Written Exit Line Action: If you do get stuck in a discussion, have a polite, short “exit line” ready. For instance, “I’ve shared my perspective—thanks for reading. Signing off now!” How it helps: Provides a swift, neutral closure that stops you from endlessly defending or explaining yourself. Celebrate Non-Engagement Wins Action: Track each day you successfully avoid an argument or inflammatory post. Reward yourself—whether it’s a small treat or just a mental high-five. How it helps: Reinforces positive behavior, making you more likely to continue avoiding unproductive debates. Read more: All If you have a mystery illness, I recommend keeping a spreadsheet that has a list of hypotheses as the rows, then columns for:
Read more: All |
Popular postsThe Parable of the Boy Who Cried 5% Chance of Wolf
The most important lesson I learned after ten years in EA Why fun writing can save lives Full List Categories
All
Kat WoodsI'm an effective altruist who co-founded Nonlinear, Charity Entrepreneurship, and Charity Science Health Archives
January 2025
Categories
All
|