Scott Alexander investigates the 'wisdom of crowds' hypothesis using survey data, exploring its effectiveness and potential applications. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the 'wisdom of crowds' hypothesis, which claims that the average of many guesses is better than a single guess. He tests this concept using data from his ACX Survey, focusing on a question about the distance between Moscow and Paris. The post explores how error rates change with crowd size, whether individuals can benefit from averaging multiple guesses, and compares his findings to a larger study by Van Dolder and Van Den Assem. Scott also ponders why wisdom of crowds isn't more widely used in decision-making and speculates on its potential applications and limitations. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews Will MacAskill's 'What We Owe The Future', a book arguing for longtermism and considering our moral obligations to future generations. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews Will MacAskill's book 'What We Owe The Future', which argues for longtermism - the idea that we should prioritize helping future generations. The review covers the book's key arguments about moral obligations to future people, ways to affect the long-term future, and population ethics dilemmas. Scott expresses some skepticism about aspects of longtermism and population ethics, but acknowledges the book's thought-provoking ideas and practical suggestions for having positive long-term impact. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander discusses a new expert survey on long-term AI risks, highlighting the diverse scenarios considered and the lack of consensus on specific threats. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses a new expert survey on long-term AI risks, conducted by Carlier, Clarke, and Schuett. Unlike previous surveys, this one focuses on people already working in AI safety and governance. The survey found a median ~10% chance of AI-related catastrophe, with individual estimates ranging from 0.1% to 100%. The survey explored six different scenarios for how AI could go wrong, including superintelligence, influence-seeking behavior, Goodharting, AI-related war, misuse by bad actors, and other possibilities. Surprisingly, all scenarios were rated as roughly equally likely, with 'other' being slightly higher. Scott notes three key takeaways: the relatively low probability assigned to unaligned AI causing extinction, the diversification of concerns beyond just superintelligence, and the lack of a unified picture of what might go wrong among experts in the field. Shorter summary

The post compares space colonization and terrestrial lifeboats as X-risk mitigation strategies, concluding that space colonies may offer better long-term survival guarantees despite higher costs. Longer summary

This post discusses the merits of colonizing space versus creating terrestrial lifeboats as strategies to mitigate existential risks (X-risks) to humanity. The authors, Nick D and Rob S, compare the costs, feasibility, and effectiveness of off-world colonies and Earth-based closed systems. They explore the challenges and benefits of each approach, including isolation from global catastrophes, technological requirements, and potential for research and economic opportunities. The collaboration concludes that while terrestrial lifeboats are more cost-effective and easier to implement, space colonies might offer better long-term guarantees for human survival due to the difficulty of abandoning them. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines his evolving view on scientific consensus, realizing it's more reliable and self-correcting than he previously thought. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reflects on his changing perspective towards scientific consensus, sharing personal experiences where he initially believed he was defying consensus but later discovered that the scientific community was often ahead of or aligned with his views. He discusses examples from various fields including the replication crisis, nutrition science, social justice issues, and AI risk. Alexander concludes that scientific consensus, while not perfect, is remarkably effective and trustworthy, often self-correcting within a decade of new evidence emerging. Shorter summary

A collection of interesting links covering various topics from scientific studies, social issues, and current events, including problems with brain imaging studies, AI safety developments, and surprising research findings. Longer summary

This is one of Scott's regular link posts where he shares and briefly comments on interesting articles and studies he's found. The post covers diverse topics including medical research critique (particularly brain imaging and psychiatric studies), current events (like the Chinese government's actions against Buddhist monks), and technological developments in AI safety. Scott adds his characteristic analytical commentary to many of the links, pointing out surprising implications or potential flaws in the studies. The format is casual but informative, with Scott often expressing personal opinions or humorous observations about the material he's sharing. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander discusses the problem of overconfidence in probability estimates, arguing that extreme certainty is rarely justified, especially for complex future predictions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the problem of overconfidence in probability estimates, particularly when people claim to be extremely certain about complex future events. He explains how experiments show that people are often vastly overconfident, even when they claim 99.9999% certainty. Scott argues that extreme confidence is rarely justified, especially for predictions about technological progress or societal changes. He suggests that overconfidence contributes to intolerance and close-mindedness, and that studying history can help reduce overconfidence by showing how often confident predictions have been wrong in the past. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander provides evidence that many prominent AI researchers are concerned about AI risk, contrary to claims in some popular articles. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to articles claiming that AI researchers are not concerned about AI risk by providing a list of prominent AI researchers who have expressed concerns about the potential risks of advanced AI. He argues that there isn't a clear divide between 'skeptics' and 'believers', but rather a general consensus that some preliminary work on AI safety is needed. The post highlights that the main differences lie in the timeline for AI development and when preparations should begin, not whether the risks are real. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the concept of innate ability and argues for its acceptance, while cautioning against tying self-worth to intellectual achievement. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of innate ability and its impact on self-worth, using personal anecdotes and philosophical arguments. He discusses how attributing success to hard work alone can be problematic, as it ignores inherent differences in aptitude. The post compares attitudes towards intelligence with those towards other traits like weight or poverty, noting a inconsistency in how society views these issues. Scott argues for accepting innate differences while still encouraging effort, and suggests that self-worth should not be tied to intellectual ability or achievement. Shorter summary

The post analyzes a debate about the effectiveness of MIRI, an AI safety organization, focusing on critiques of their academic output and defenses of their outreach efforts. Longer summary

This post discusses a debate on Tumblr about the effectiveness of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI), an organization focused on AI safety. It covers critiques of MIRI's lack of academic publications and citations, as well as defenses of their outreach and strategic research efforts. The post examines arguments about MIRI's team qualifications, research output, and impact on the AI research community. Shorter summary