niplav @niplav@schelling.pt

additionally, some countries (*cough cough*) had some, let's say, embarassing behavior in the world wars

the Losskreuz

so that's why i think (at least some) european countries are (at least somewhat) more hesitant to go out and intervene in the affairs of others

(don't talk to me about muh pearl harbor, that's a blip compared to what happened in europe.)

on the other hand, the US comes in and there's already a conflict going on elsewhere, it's not quite clear why it's happening, but it looks like it's bad, so “we can go over there and shut up the bad guys” *star spangled banner blares*

this is more clear in the context of WWI: an austrian is shot in serbia, because serbia wants independence, but russia intervenes because it wants to control serbia, and germany & austria fight russia, and france has an alliance with russia, and germany always wanted to fight france anyway, ……… the level of intervention and trying to intervene in other countries' affairs leads to a chain reaction that brings about calamity.

none of the two worldwars took place on US soil, and the US entered both conflicts relatively late, so there is less US cultural knowledge about them (mostly in the form of “relative X went overseas and died/came back traumatized”). but in europe, the countries were the place the WWs were happening. and they experienced a different way how those conflicts came to play: countries interfering in the affairs of other countries.

I think I understand why the US and central european countries have so different reactions to foreign interventions/participating in conflicts outside of ones own borders than the US: the US didn't experience the two world wars the way european countries did.

zee oder tucker?

akira: having the property of acquiring

let's not read the thielleaves

Image description (cont): The PredictionBook p-values start out at around 10⁻⁵, where they stay until 25 months, then rise to 10⁻¹ to 10⁻² until month 40, then drop down back to 10⁻⁵ until month 65, and then finally rise back up to 10⁻² to 10⁻³ month where they stay until the dataset ends.

Image description (cont): The PredictionBook correlations also start around 0, then rise slowly to ~0.05 at 60 months, at which point they start oscillating around 0 with larger and larger amplitudes until month 120. The p-values for Metaculus start out around 10⁻⁶, then jump around between 10⁻⁵ to 10⁻² in the first 15 months, and then dip down in the range of 10⁻²⁵ to 10⁻³⁵, and then recover back to 10⁻⁵ to 10⁻² until the end of the Metaculus dataset.

Image description: Plot with four lines. Two are correlation coefficients, of Metaculus truncated correlations and PredictionBook truncated correlations. The Metaculus correlations are close to zero in the first ~15 months, then dip into negative correlations (around -0.2) until month ~35, then rise to positive correlations (around 0.15) until month 40, and then start oscillating wildly (shortly afterwards the data for Metaculus correlations ends).

First time that I have encountered p-values <<10⁻³⁰ irl

which doesn't have to be this way! blue tribe & anti-agi risk people have mostly orthogonal concerns (i really don't see the overlap of algorithmic fairness & agent foundations, tbqhwy), and probably ample opportunities for trade (which blue-triber *actually cares* about compute governance etc.?) but i think zero-sum anti-trade genre affiliation thinking from blue-tribes side will prevent most of that mutually beneficial governance from happening.

ESPECIALLY in discussions around AGI

looks like blue tribe will end up anti agi risk. sucks, but should have been forseeable—the connection to gray tribe & techbros is too strong.