2025-01-05 21:37:00
It’s interesting to observe the effects of AI on chess as a sport. You might expect that since AI defeated Gary Kasparov in 1997, and subsequently, AI became far better than any human player, interest in chess would diminish. But interestingly, there has been a surge in interest over the past 5 years, with more and more people playing and watching it (COVID and the Queen’s Gambit get some of the credit).
Watching experts analyze AI chess games can also be fascinating. It’s like a human trying to explain the behavior of a super-intelligent alien. The experts are sometimes baffled by a move the AI makes, only to see it pay off a dozen moves later.
What we see regarding cheating is also interesting. Any chess novice can now beat the human world champion if they can sneakily access a chess engine during the game. This means that in-person games are a more trustworthy measure of skill than online games – and even then, there have been cheating accusations for in-person games (such as the famous but never confirmed “vibrating anal beads” accusation).
Some claim that at the very highest levels of the game, AI has made it less interesting for experienced observers – that grandmasters spend more of the opening game doing moves that are not novel (due, in part, to AI’s use in training. Others have argued that AI has helped democratize skill development by making it easier to learn faster through immediate AI feedback.
Many aspects of the world will change dramatically with AI. Chess is a special example because it was impacted particularly early.
It happened so long ago that some people don’t want to call Deep Blue (the system that beat Kasparov) an “AI” since it works so differently than modern ones. But, by the reasonably standard definition of AI: “a computer system able to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence,” it was AI, just an early form of it. If we want to say that Deep Blue is just a glorified tree search algorithm, then we might have to say that ChatGPT is mainly just a bunch of linear algebra. For all we know, human thought could turn out to be decomposable into a sequence of simple algorithms (I, for one, hope this isn’t the case).
This piece was first written on January 5, 2025, and first appeared on my website on January 26, 2025.
2024-11-20 23:35:00
Is it a bad idea to broadly tell people to just “trust the science”? I think so.
The reason stems from my thinking that all of the following are important and true (and too often overlooked) regarding science:
1) A lot of science is real AND valuable to society.
2) A lot of “science” is actually fake – see, for instance, a decent percentage of papers in psychology 15 years ago.
3) “Science” (as an approach to knowledge discovery) is one of humanity’s greatest inventions – but in practice, it is reasonably often misapplied, or the process is distorted due to bad incentives or poor training. Unfortunately, not all fields of science have done a good job of being self-correcting either, so sometimes, fields go in bad directions for quite a while and need reform. There are different kinds of bad science:
(i) Sometimes, science is “bad” because it uses unsound methods for figuring out the truth (such as when p-hacking is rampant).
(ii) Sometimes it is “bad” because it overclaims (e.g., “Importance Hacking” where scientists claim they found something important/valuable when they didn’t actually demonstrate what they claim in their study. Or cases where science is used to “prove” questions that can’t be proven by science – such as which policy is better in a particular context when it’s actually a tradeoff between different values).
(iii) Other times science is bad because it is biased (e.g., when people are only willing to run or publish studies that show X but not that show the opposite of X).
(iv) And sometimes science is bad because it’s simply fraudulent.
4) Promoting broad “trust the science” is misguided (and actually harmful) because a bunch of science is fake. If you tell people to always just “trust the science,” then you are going to cause them to be tricked by a bunch of bad science, or you are going to contribute to their disillusionment and loss of trust when they discover (correctly) that some of the science you’re saying is good is actually garbage.
5) The “distrust all science” view is probably an even worse take than “trust the science.” If you distrust all science, you are likely to miss out on incredible things (such as highly effective treatments), and you set yourself up to fall for tons of things that don’t work (e.g., widely used unscientific treatments). Those who tell people to always just “trust the science” sometimes accidentally push people into the “distrust all science” view when those people realize that some of what they are being told to trust is crap.
6) So, hard as it is, rather than promoting either “trust all science” or “distrust all science,” the course of action I believe in with regard to science education is to teach people that “Science” (as a method) is an incredibly powerful and useful invention, but that “science” (as actually practiced) is much like every other field: some of it is good, some of it is crap. There are good hairdressers and bad hairdressers, and there is good science and bad science (and unfortunately, some bad science ends up in the very top journals – while journals and peer review absolutely do block some bad science, they unfortunately still let through quite a lot of it).
Since some science is well done, and some of it is poorly done, it’s very valuable to learn to tell the difference to make the best use of scientific results – both with regard to applying it in your own life and using it to form your beliefs about the world.
If we pretend science is all good or all bad, we do a lot of harm. We need nuance to see through the bad stuff while maintaining the tremendous benefits.
This piece was first written on November 20, 2024, and first appeared on my website on January 14, 2025.
2024-11-16 23:24:00
One reason people often disagree about what’s immoral is that they have different values. But there’s another important reason that I think few are aware of: there are at least four different kinds of moral evaluations of behavior, and it’s easy to conflate them. I argue that only one of these categories is actually sufficient grounds for judging an *action* as immoral, despite many people using the other categories to evaluate the morality of actions. I think they are making a subtle (and common) mistake when they do so.
These four categories of moral reactions to behavior are:
1) Disgust: A visceral, emotional reaction to a behavior (which appears connected to the moral realm) that’s perceived as gross or disgusting.
Examples:
• The disgust that most people would have at the idea of someone eating human flesh (even in a survival scenario where there is no other food available and a person has died of natural causes).
• The disgusted reaction that some (but not most) people have to the idea of gay sex. For instance, in one study I ran, about 40% of Americans said that imagining themselves having sex with someone of their own gender caused them “an emotion of disgust.”
I think that people sometimes confuse the visceral emotion of disgust in response to a behavior with the behavior itself actually being immoral. Jonathan Haidt’s “moral dumbfounding” experiments support this point of view, where people insist a situation is immoral but can’t explain what is immoral about it (because the situations were carefully crafted not to violate moral principles and not to involve harm).
2) Character judgments: when a behavior is seen as indicative of an unethical character, even in cases where the behavior itself has no actual effects.
Examples:
• A person going to watch the daily operations of a slaughterhouse because they are intrigued by the idea of watching an animal die
• A person who enjoys daydreaming about stealing items from people they know, even though they have never stolen before
Cases like these provide evidence (some would argue, though it’s perhaps debatable) that a person has bad moral character, even if the behaviors themselves are not immoral. But people can jump to thinking an action is immoral because the sort of person that does it is more likely to be immoral, which I’d argue is, a mistake. While immoral actions are evidence of bad moral character, some actions that are evidence of bad moral character are not themselves immoral actions!
3) Heuristics: when a behavior is (collectively) judged as being “bad” because it often either causes harm, involves unethical behavior, or involves defecting on a social contract of some sort. These negative judgments can apply even if the behavior in question isn’t causing any harm in the specific situation where it’s being witnessed.
Examples:
• Driving fifty miles an hour over the speed limit is generally categorized as bad behavior, but if someone did it because they were driving a dying person to the hospital, we’d say that was actually okay.
• The head of an organization dating one of their employees is generally viewed as bad behavior because it often leads to harm, but there are instances where many people would say that in that particular case, it was ethically okay, such as cases where the employee insistently initiated the relationship leading to the pair ending up happily married
It’s easy to think of violations of heuristics like these as being bad, but really what’s going on is that we’re socially agreeing they are bad because it’s a good and helpful rule of thumb to treat them that way. But special circumstances can make them fine. Because of this, it’s not unreasonable to judge actions as probably bad when they fall in these categories (when we lack other information), but we should be sensitive to the specific details of the case since they are not necessarily bad.
4) Fundamentally unethical: a behavior that is, in and of itself, actually unethical according to at least some people’s deep ethical values. These actions don’t necessarily cause a feeling of disgust, and don’t merely appear bad because they are the sort of thing bad people do, and aren’t merely matching a heuristic about what’s bad – they are actually bad because of the precise action for some ethical values that people hold.
Examples:
• Poisoning your toddler because you don’t want a child
• Pretending you love someone when you don’t because you lack the courage to be honest
• Secretly spying on someone so you can see them naked
• Violating a promise you swore to uphold merely because you’re feeling lazy
When we treat an action as fundamentally unethical merely because it produces a feeling of disgust, or because it’s the sort of thing that provides evidence of bad character, or only because we have a societal heuristic against it because actions in that category tend to be harmful, I think we’re making a mistake. These categories are easy to conflate with an action being immoral, but they aren’t the same thing.
This piece was first written on November 16, 2024, and first appeared on my website on January 20, 2025.
2024-11-09 14:05:00
At what step do you stop agreeing with this logical argument relating to animals? For each step, I’m also showing the percentage of disagreements on social media that involved this step (either direct disagreements with the step or disagreements with its premise). (There were a total of 63 such disagreements described across my posts on Facebook and X.)
Note: any time the argument mentions something being wrong or immoral, you can treat it either as referring to something being (a) objectively wrong (if you believe in objective moral truth) or (b) wrong according to your own personal moral values (if you don’t believe in objective moral truth).
Step 1: Mammals (like dogs, cats, and pigs) and birds (like parrots and chickens) are capable of suffering.
1.6% of disagreements shared with me on social media involved this step.
Step 2: It’s wrong to cause suffering to dogs and cats if the reason you do it is just because it leads to you getting a small amount of pleasure relative to the suffering caused (e.g., if someone finds it fun to kick dogs and cats, it’s immoral for them to do so merely for pleasure).
11.1% of disagreements shared with me on social media involved this step.
Step 3: It’s wrong to cause suffering to pigs and chickens if the reason you do it is just because it leads to you getting a small amount of pleasure relative to the suffering caused (e.g., if someone finds it fun to kick pigs and chickens, it’s immoral for them to do so merely for pleasure).
None of the disagreements shared with me on social media involved this step.
Step 4: It’s wrong to cause suffering to pigs and chickens if the only reason you do it is a small amount of convenience relative to the suffering caused (e.g., if kicking a dog or pig in the face is more convenient because it causes it to go into its pen a little faster, it’s immoral to do so merely for this convenience).
6.3% of disagreements shared with me on social media involved this step.
Step 5: It is wrong to cause suffering to pigs and chickens merely for pleasure and convenience, even if the mechanism by which you cause this suffering is by paying someone else who then creates the suffering (e.g., if you pay someone to kick an animal because you enjoy seeing an animal be kicked, or you pay someone to kick an animal because the animal is in your way, that is still immoral even though you didn’t cause the harm with your own body).
4.8% of disagreements shared with me on social media involved this step.
Step 6: On large factory farms in the U.S., most of the pigs and chickens suffer a great deal and experience more pain than pleasure (i.e., net negative utility) throughout their lives (e.g., most egg-laying hens live in tiny cages where they can barely move most of their lives, and pigs are often kept in crowded barns with concrete floors and no ability to roam).
11.1% of disagreements shared with me on social media involved this step.
Step 7: The vast majority of egg and (non-fish) meat products sold at stores in the U.S. come from large factory farms.
None of the disagreements shared with me on social media involved this step.
Step 8: By purchasing egg and pork products from stores that use large factory farms as the suppliers for these products, throughout your whole life, you increase the number of chickens and pigs raised on factory farms (in an expected value sense – just as predicted by standard economic theory regarding what happens to production when demand increases).
1.6% of disagreements shared with me on social media involved this step.
Step 9: The vast majority of people in the U.S. could switch to a diet that doesn’t involve eating factory-farmed pork and eggs without increasing the amount of money they spend on food (e.g., most could find an egg-free vegetarian diet that is as cheap or cheaper than their current diet, or a diet that otherwise avoids factory-farmed pork and eggs).
12.7% of disagreements shared with me on social media involved this step.
Step 10: The vast majority of people in the U.S. could switch to a diet that doesn’t involve eating factory-farmed pork and eggs without sacrificing their health (e.g., most could find an egg-free vegetarian diet that’s as healthy or healthier for them than their current diet, or a healthy diet that otherwise avoids factory-farmed pork and eggs).
19.0% of disagreements shared with me on social media involved this step.
Step 11: Something having been done naturally by our ancient ancestors, or being a tradition, or being a result of evolution, does not make something morally okay (e.g., even if it was common for humanity’s ancient ancestors to commit rape, or if a group had a tradition of committing rape, or if human evolution favored those who raped, that would not make rape any less immoral).
3.2% of disagreements shared with me on social media involved this step.
Step 12: For most Americans, the only sacrifices they’d be making to switch to a well-thought-through diet free of factory-farmed pork and eggs would be a reduction of some pleasure (if they enjoy factory-farmed pork and eggs) and a loss of some convenience (when alternative food is not as convenient to obtain).
22.2% of disagreements shared with me on social media involved this step.
Step 13: In most cases (e.g., when there aren’t overriding health concerns, dietary restrictions, or a lack of availability of alternative foods), it is immoral for Americans to buy most pork and egg products from most stores in the U.S.
3.2% of disagreements shared with me on social media involved this step.
Step 14: The majority of Americans are acting immorally in their current purchasing behaviors regarding pork and eggs, but most of them could switch their behavior without excessive difficulty so as to have more ethical food purchasing behaviors (e.g., by adopting an egg-free vegetarian diet, or by avoiding buying animal products that come from factory farms, etc.).
3.2% of disagreements shared with me on social media involved this step.
This piece was first written on November 9, 2024, and first appeared on my website on January 22, 2025.
2024-11-03 12:04:00
While some group conversations are great (e.g., with close friends), a lot of group conversations are boring, the lowest common denominator, or hijacked by one talkative person. How can you make group conversations more interesting?
Here’s what I’ve found to be useful:
1) Shrink the group
The best group conversations typically happen (I claim) in groups of 3 to 5. If your group is bigger than that, you can split it into smaller groups (e.g., by engaging with the people closest to you). With 7, it’s hard to get a word in or stay on any thread.
2) Introduce a topic
If the group seems to be bored, an easy way to steer the conversation is to wait for a lull and then say, “I’d be curious to hear what the people in this group think about…” and then raise a topic that’s likely to be very interesting and relevant to folks there.
3) Invite an exceptional conversationalist
Some people are very good at keeping everyone engaged. If you can, bring someone like that along who can make the discussions more interesting for everyone. Socially skilled extroverts who really care about others having fun are a good bet.
4) Leave out or inform the obliviously over-talkative
Some people talk a lot but don’t pay attention to whether others are interested (e.g., extroverts who are narcissistic or who lack strong social perception). Just one can ruin a large group conversation (even if they’re fine in other settings). When they are well-meaning and are likely to take the feedback well, you can point out this tendency and hope they improve. If they are unlikely to want to hear the feedback or unlikely to take it well, you could simply not invite them to events focused on group conversation.
5) Encourage interesting introverts
Some people have very interesting things to share but are quiet in group settings due to shyness or not wanting to draw attention to themselves. Involve them by asking for their perspective or directing questions to them (if you think they wouldn’t mind).
6) Keep things on track
Sometimes, a group conversation will be interesting, but then, suddenly, it gets derailed by someone’s stray comment that leads the group in a random direction. Consider jumping in to make a comment or ask a question related to the prior thread to return to the more interesting topic.
I hope some of these ideas help you improve your next group conversation or dinner party!
This piece was first written on November 3, 2024, and first appeared on my website on November 7, 2024.
2024-09-28 09:49:00
As you may have experienced yourself, sometimes, when people are chronically ill and go to lots of doctors, the doctors conclude that there is nothing medically wrong. I think it’s important in these cases not to jump to a conclusion too quickly about why it has remained undiagnosed and to take seriously *all three* of these possibilities:
1) Diagnosis Error: It’s a non-standard presentation of a known disease or a rare (or frequently missed or misunderstood) disease, making it hard to get properly diagnosed. In this case, seeking out fantastic doctors (especially those with relevant expertise) may lead to a solution.
For instance, one time, I started presenting with strange symptoms and was getting sicker every week. It turned out to be due to mold! I had just moved into a new home, and there was mold hidden behind a wall about 3 feet from where I was sleeping. Once we located the mold and removed it, I recovered completely in a few weeks.
While it sometimes happens that people misattribute issues to mold exposure, I’m pretty confident that mold actually was the cause in this instance. This was due to the timing of the symptoms starting and stopping and due to the fact that I’ve never had symptoms like that prior to the event or since the event.
As another example, I know more than one person who had a fairly common disorder that doctors tend not to understand very well for some reason. In each case, it took these people quite a lot of time to get the right diagnosis from doctors.
A third example is a friend who has an unusual dietary sensitivity. For some time, nobody could figure out why they had the odd symptoms that they did. Luckily, they discovered that when they remove certain items from their diet, their symptoms completely disappear, leaving them feeling dramatically better.
2) Psychological: It’s a physiological reaction to a psychological phenomenon (such as due to stress or anxiety), or it’s a psychosomatic condition. In such cases, a psychologist may be life-changing. Note that psychosomatic does not mean that the experiences are not really felt. If you feel pain in your stomach, then you have pain in your stomach. The question is, “What is generating that pain?”
To give an example, at one point in my life, when I was going through a tremendous amount of stress, I thought that I had some kind of mysterious medical problem because of strange and intense physical symptoms (e.g., chronic nausea, random tingling in my arms, tightness in my chest). But it turned out to be all just caused by the stress and went away when I improved my coping strategies and the stressful events receded further into the past.
Another example is from someone I know who had bad pain for years. He would try to carefully work around the pain, only to eventually discover that the key to eventually ending the pain was to use his body naturally and not let the pain constrain his behaviors.
3) Unknown to Science: it’s a type of medical issue that medicine hasn’t yet discovered. All currently known disorders were at one time not known about. While there are fewer and fewer of these as science progresses, and it would be nice to think that medicine has figured it all out by this point, the reality is that there are still some things that are mysterious to science. In such cases, symptom management and lifestyle changes (that make it easier to live with the issues) may be the only option.
As an example, I have (for as long as I can remember) had trouble with my sleep, and despite going to numerous doctors, getting numerous tests, and trying numerous remedies, I’ve never resolved it. I’m still open to the possibility that whatever my sleep issue is, it’s of type (1) or (2), but I’ve come to think it’s increasingly likely to be in category (3).
My best guess is that fairly common conditions that end up grouping patients together by their symptoms (without medicine understanding the underlying causes), with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome being the classic example, typically end up being a mix of (1), (2) and (3) depending on the patient. Some such patients probably have a known disease that has been misidentified, others may have a psychological origin of their fatigue (such as from anxiety or depression), and others may have a medical problem that is not yet known to science.
If you or a loved one has been ill for a while, and you still don’t have a helpful diagnosis despite seeing a number of doctors, I definitely recommend staying open-minded to all three of the above possibilities. I think that people often jump to conclusions too quickly because they assume it can’t have psychological origins (because they think it wouldn’t “feel so real” if it was psychological), or they assume if doctors say they are healthy, that there really isn’t a medical explanation for their symptoms.
It’s also very worthwhile to be careful in these situations because there are numerous peddlers of fake treatments who make their living on people in exactly these kinds of situations (especially after desperation sinks in). Most (but not all) of those peddlers actually believe in their own cures, which makes them even more convincing salespeople for their useless (and sometimes actively harmful) “remedies.”
This piece was first written on September 27, 2024, and first appeared on my website on October 27, 2024.