A review of 'Safe Enough?' by Thomas Wellock, exploring the history and limitations of Probabilistic Risk Assessment in nuclear safety. Longer summary

This book review examines 'Safe Enough? A History of Nuclear Power and Accident Risk' by Thomas Wellock, which chronicles the development of Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) in nuclear safety. The review discusses how PRA became the dominant method for analyzing nuclear risk, its successes in reducing accidents, and its limitations in predicting extreme events like Fukushima. The author argues that while PRA greatly improved nuclear safety, it cannot fully account for rare but catastrophic 'dragon king' events, leaving the question of whether nuclear power is 'safe enough' ultimately unanswered. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander uses Kelly betting to argue why AI development, unlike other technologies, poses too great a risk to civilization to pursue aggressively. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Scott Aaronson's argument for being less hostile to AI development. While agreeing with Aaronson's points about nuclear power and other technologies where excessive caution caused harm, Alexander argues that AI is different. He uses the concept of Kelly betting from finance to explain why: even with good bets, you shouldn't risk everything at once. Alexander contends that while technology is generally a great bet, AI development risks 'betting everything' on civilization's future. He concludes that while some AI development is necessary, we must treat existential risks differently than other technological risks. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander analyzes the potential role of psychopharmacology in the FTX crash, discussing medications used by SBF and others, and their possible effects on decision-making. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the psychopharmacology aspects of the FTX crash, focusing on the medications Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) and other FTX employees may have been taking. He examines claims about SBF's use of Emsam (selegiline), modafinil, and other stimulants, explaining their effects and potential risks. Scott also critiques the actions of FTX's company psychiatrist and discusses the broader implications of stimulant use in high-pressure work environments. The post ends with Scott's personal anecdote about testifying as an expert witness. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the current research on Long COVID, analyzing its prevalence, symptoms, and potential impacts to assess personal risk and societal implications. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews the current research on Long COVID, examining its prevalence, symptoms, duration, and impact on different groups. He explores various studies, discusses potential mechanisms, and evaluates the psychosomatic argument. The post concludes with an assessment of personal risk and comparisons to other post-viral syndromes, emphasizing the uncertainties still surrounding Long COVID. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that the media's failure in coronavirus coverage was not about prediction, but about poor probabilistic reasoning and decision-making under uncertainty. Longer summary

This post discusses the media's failure in covering the coronavirus pandemic, arguing that the issue was not primarily one of prediction but of probabilistic reasoning and decision-making under uncertainty. Scott Alexander argues that while predicting the exact course of the pandemic was difficult, the media and experts failed to properly convey and act on the potential risks even when the probability seemed low. He contrasts this with examples of good reasoning from individuals who took the threat seriously early on, not because they were certain it would be catastrophic, but because they understood the importance of preparing for low-probability, high-impact events. Shorter summary

Scott reviews 'The Black Swan' by Nassim Taleb, examining its key concepts and Taleb's unique perspective on probability and risk. Longer summary

Scott reviews Nassim Nicholas Taleb's book 'The Black Swan', which explores the impact of rare and unpredictable events. He discusses Taleb's key concepts like the ludic fallacy and Platonicity, compares the book to other works on rationality, and reflects on Taleb's unique style and perspective. Scott also examines Taleb's critique of 'nerds' and his emphasis on empiricism over theory, while noting some potential issues with an overly empirical approach. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander criticizes Ted Chiang's article that compares AI risk to capitalism, arguing that the analogy is flawed and the reasoning behind it is unsound. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques Ted Chiang's article comparing AI risk to capitalism, arguing that the comparison is flawed and the reasoning unsound. He points out that AI risk concerns originated from academics, not just Silicon Valley, and that drawing analogies between scientific concepts and social phenomena doesn't disprove the original concept. Scott also criticizes Chiang's use of psychological projection to explain AI fears, noting the dangers of amateur psychoanalysis. He concludes by emphasizing that this approach to risk assessment is inappropriate for potentially catastrophic issues. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques the argument that terrorism is less concerning than mundane accidents, showing how excluding 'outlier' events can dangerously skew risk assessments for threats like terrorism and pandemics. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques the common argument that terrorism shouldn't be a major concern because it kills fewer people than mundane accidents like falling furniture. He points out that this reasoning is flawed because it often arbitrarily excludes major events like 9/11 as 'outliers'. Using examples like earthquakes in Haiti and the 1918 flu pandemic, he demonstrates how excluding extreme events can drastically skew risk assessments. He argues that for some threats, including terrorism, pandemics, and existential risks, these 'outlier' events are actually the most important consideration. The post concludes by expressing concern that this flawed reasoning might be applied after a future catastrophic terrorist attack, undermining the importance of prevention efforts. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander analyzes the health risks of eating processed meat, demonstrating how to put such risks in perspective and interpret mortality statistics accurately. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the importance of putting health risks in perspective, using the example of a recent study linking processed meat consumption to increased cancer risk. He calculates that eating processed meat daily might reduce life expectancy by about three weeks, or roughly a minute per serving. He then expands on how to interpret relative risk increases in mortality, explaining that a 20% increase in mortality doesn't mean reducing lifespan by 20%, but rather a much smaller effect. The post emphasizes the need to distinguish between absolute and relative risk, and to consider the trade-offs between health risks and quality of life when making dietary decisions. Shorter summary

Scott examines how rare but severe drug side effects often lead to underprescription compared to drugs with common but less severe side effects, potentially resulting in suboptimal patient care. Longer summary

This post discusses the issue of rare but severe side effects in psychiatric medications versus common but less severe side effects. Scott uses two main examples: nefazodone vs SSRIs for depression, and modafinil vs Adderall for stimulants. He argues that drugs with rare but spectacular side effects (like nefazodone and modafinil) are often underprescribed compared to drugs with more common but less severe side effects (like SSRIs and Adderall). The post explores the reasons for this, including doctors' risk aversion, lawsuit concerns, and media coverage of rare side effects. Scott suggests that this pattern may lead to suboptimal treatment choices for patients. Shorter summary

Scott satirizes media reporting on AI risk by presenting exaggerated or misrepresented coverage of other potential dangers, highlighting issues in risk reporting. Longer summary

This post satirizes media reporting on AI risk by presenting exaggerated or misrepresented coverage of other potential dangers. Scott uses a series of fictional news snippets to highlight common issues in risk reporting, such as sensationalism, downplaying serious threats, misplaced focus, and inappropriate tone. The examples cover various topics including terrorism, climate change, nuclear war, economic crises, natural disasters, and geopolitical conflicts. The post critiques media tendencies to either overstate or understate risks, misrepresent expert opinions, or focus on irrelevant details while missing the bigger picture. Shorter summary

Ozy argues for diversifying charitable donations, while Scott counters that focusing on the single most efficient charity at any given time is more effective. Longer summary

This post includes two perspectives on charity donation strategies. Ozy argues for diversification in charitable giving, comparing it to stock market investing. They suggest that a society of effective altruists would still support various charities due to uncertainty and the balance between high-risk/high-return and low-risk/low-return options. Scott disagrees, arguing that charity differs from stock investments due to the absence of diminishing returns in lives saved. He introduces concepts of disaster aversion and low-hanging fruit, concluding that at any given time, there is one most efficient charity to donate to based on current funding levels and marginal utility. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends an economic principle often mocked in jokes, explaining its validity when applied to long-standing, seemingly obvious financial opportunities. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a common joke about economists dismissing free money on the ground. He argues that the underlying economic principle, when phrased more realistically, is actually correct and useful. The post explains that while it's possible to find money just dropped, it's highly unlikely for a bill to remain unclaimed in a busy area for an extended period. This principle warns against seemingly easy, no-risk money-making opportunities that have been available for a while, suggesting they may be more complicated or risky than they appear. Shorter summary