Scott Alexander explains why dismissing warnings just because previous similar warnings were wrong is a dangerous fallacy, particularly for risks that naturally increase over time. Longer summary

Scott Alexander criticizes what he calls the "generalized anti-caution argument" - the tendency to dismiss warnings about risks because previous similar warnings didn't come true. He explains that for gradually increasing risks (like drug doses or AI capabilities), being wrong about earlier warnings doesn't invalidate later ones. He illustrates this through several examples including the Ukraine war, Biden's cognitive decline, and AI development, contrasting these with cases where the risk doesn't naturally increase over time. The post ends by arguing that people should maintain appropriate caution even after false alarms, particularly for risks that naturally increase over time. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues for a universal right to self-determination, critiquing the current paradigm of determining which groups qualify as 'peoples'. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of self-determination in international politics, focusing on the case of Ukraine and Russia. He critiques the current paradigm of determining which groups qualify as 'peoples' deserving self-determination, arguing instead for a universal right to self-determination for any region large enough to feasibly be its own country. The post discusses the complexities and potential problems with this approach, including the cases of Crimea and the American Confederacy. Scott concludes that while his position leads to some controversial conclusions, it's more consistent and ethically sound than basing self-determination on subjective cultural or historical criteria. Shorter summary