Robin Hanson

Remember that this was asking what do others do, not what should people do? Quote.

Robin Hanson.

According to poll, relative strength of moral guides others use.

There's an image here.

A table listing categories with values from popular one hundred point zero to ancient zero point zero.

End quote.

Robin was as usual Robin Hansoning as he described reason as argued for by our impressive thinkers rather than what the person thinks is right based on their own reason.

As you would expect, Robin then argues hard against using your conscience A very clear case for effective altruism, especially from Patrick McKenzie.

I had this idea of a much wider application of betting markets in the late 1980s.

That is Robin Hanson.

He is an economics professor at George Mason University.

And it's always been in the background as something I was willing and eager to do if there were people to do it with, but there have been long stretches where there hasn't been that much interest.

You're invited to not have a direct opinion on these topics, but go look for biases, look for patterns, look for errors in these prices.

And if you can find any pattern that looks like it's a mistake, you are paid to fix that.

[instrumental music] Robin Hanson sees the true potential of prediction markets in their ability to inform decisions at scale.

When most people get into this topic, the thing they think they want the markets to be about are the usual topics in the media and public conversations, and that's what I thought initially, too.

From their future perspective, it would be just another religious and tribal conflict, where ambitious and greedy leaders manipulated the masses into hating each other for their personal political gain.

Robin Hanson correctly argues that, because of cultural drift, future people will have little interest in our modern debates about transgender rights or the Second Amendment.

They'll be too busy debating their own futuristic moral conundrums.

Unfortunately, the culture war will, in fact, have vast historical impact, not due to its innate intellectual significance, but because almost all the work of AGI development will be done within its spatiotemporal extent.

Did you know mathematicians are good at drawing straight lines on graphs? There is a real complaint here.

Getting people with talent to do real math for long periods of time, for very little money, and develop real math intuitions and concept mastery, when they could do other things for far more money, is no easy feat if you take away their status gains and also far more importantly take away their fun and feelings of accomplishment and elegance and beauty, what then? Robin Hanson suggests that then we should just fix the incentives and reward mathematicians better.

Robin Hanson, there is nothing stopping the mathematics community from awarding status, pay, and promotions to people who fill in the important blanks in math understanding, even if an AI already has proven or disproven the underlying theorems.

End quote.

He doesn't use the word just but this is definitely a just, as in if only people would just x, and as we all know humans have never just and are not about to start now.

this is not an actual thing humans might do.

As even he then realized hours later, quote, Robin Hanson.

Actually it seems to me quite a bit harder for the math academic community to coordinate a judge who filled in blanks in math in ways other than proving theorems.