Increments

Vaden manages to penetrate deep into the rationalist stronghold in San Francisco, the Mecca of Yudkowsky himself, and - exactly as we'd all expect - gets into an epistemological standoff. Can he shake a Bayesian's credence in Bayesianism, or does he find in himself a Jaynesian acolyte, ready to make sure that no Dutchman is going to be able to mess with his books? We discuss Critical rationalism vs. Bayesianism Toby Ord's doom estimates Asteroids vs. AI risk What probabilities measure Comparing made-up numbers Is probability a law? Cox's theorem and Dutch books COVID models and Monte Carlo AI expert surveys How we actually decide Bentham's Bulldog and Pascal's mugging Animal consciousness and vegetarianism Strong longtermism References I Have Lost My Ability to be Charitable to Vaden (Eneasz Brodsky, Death Is Bad) The Bayesian Conspiracy ep. 273, "Vaden Masrani on... Critical Rationalism?" Death Is Bad, Eneasz's blog The Bayesian Conspiracy podcast Learning Bayesian Statistics ep. 160, "Bayesian Statistics vs Epistemology" (Alexandre Andorra with Vaden Masrani) Is P(Doom) Meaningful? Epistemology Debate with Vaden Masrani and Ben Chugg (Doom Debates, Liron Shapira; also Increments bonus ep. 76) Vaden's four-part longtermism series: A Case Against Strong Longtermism: A response to Hilary Greaves and William MacAskill (EA Forum version) Proving Too Much: A response to the EA forum The Credence Assumption: The paradoxes and problems with Cox's Theorem The Poverty of Longtermism: Why longtermism isn't an idea that could save one hundred billion trillion lives Books and papers The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity (Toby Ord) The Case for Strong Longtermism (Hilary Greaves, William MacAskill) (GPI summary) Global Catastrophes and Trends: The Next Fifty Years (Vaclav Smil, MIT Press, 2008) Conjectures and Refutations (Karl Popper) The Scout Mindset (Julia Galef) What's your P(Vaden is Bad Faith)? Send your credence, and only your credence, over to [email protected]

Vaden has been annoyed about the Hugging Face incident for weeks, and the only known cure is yelling about it on the podcast. Ben, who as usual is more even-headed and objective about the incident (incidentally, he also writes the episode descriptions) plays devil's advocate. Was there ever really a sandbox? Did the agents cheat, or did they just do what they were told? Is terrifying the public good for an IPO? Multiple analogies enter the fray, zero minds are changed, and Saturday Night Live gets the last word. We discuss What actually happened in the Hugging Face incident (and what is ExploitGym?) What Project Glasswing and Mythos already told us about AI and cybersecurity Is a sandbox with Artifactory access still a sandbox? Did the agents cheat, or just follow their prompt? Negligence, PR stunt, or both? Going through OpenAI's timeline How independent is an "independent" investigation? Does anthropomorphic language help you predict what AI will do? Grenades, knives, and yogurt: parenting styles for package managers References The Hugging Face incident and the road ahead (OpenAI blog post): https://openai.com/index/hugging-face-incident-and-the-road-ahead/ OpenAI's technical report on the incident (PDF): https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/67869394-cb91-4c12-888c-5cbd85c7814c/OpenAI-Hugging-Face%20Incident-Technical-Report.pdf Making Sense #494, "A Coin Toss for the Future" (Sam Harris with Ryan Greenblatt): https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/494-a-coin-toss-for-the-future Redwood Research on the incident: https://blog.redwoodresearch.org/p/the-openaihuggingface-incident-redwood Dwarkesh Podcast with Ajeya Cotra, "Inside the OpenAI agent swarm that hacked Hugging Face": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X50zezLFWWI&pp=ygUVZHdhcmtlc2ggaHVnZ2luZyBmYWNl Melanie Mitchell, "Misleading Metaphors and Real Risks": https://aiguide.substack.com/p/misleading-metaphors-and-real-risks Anthropic's Project Glasswing: https://www.anthropic.com/glasswing JFrog Artifactory: https://jfrog.com/artifactory/ Our episode with Melanie Mitchell: https://www.incrementspodcast.com/45 Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Become a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube We urge you to urge us to stop. Send your urges over to [email protected]

At 3am, tossing and turning in your bed, have you ever wondered why this generation is full of a bunch of fragile sissies? Journalist Abigail Shrier has, and her answer is: Therapy. Too much God d*** therapy. Is she right? Ben and Vaden read her 2024 book on the subject, Bad Therapy, and discuss it, including the good, the bad, and the preposterous footnotes. Buy the book here https://www.amazon.com/dp/0593542924 and check out the rest of Shrier's work here https://www.abigailshrier.com/. We discuss Iatrogenesis and whether there are negative side effects of therapy Why overly focusing on your feelings can lead to unhappiness Should kids be asked about suicidal ideation? Some problems with Shrier's analysis For God's sale, are kids fragile, or are they not? References Bad Therapy: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0593542924 Irreversible Damage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreversible_Damage Dr. K's youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/HealthyGamerGG Part 1 of Decoding the Gurus series on Dr K: https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/dr-k-part-1-oped-ayurvedic-medicine-vs-nerfed-western-allopathy Let Grow: https://letgrow.org/ Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Become a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube Would you rather go to therapy or fight in WWII? Tell us at [email protected]

After Jason Arday, the second biggest topic of conversation has of course been the rise of the neuro-grifting guru. And for good reason! Neuroscience has been causing confusion lately. What is the hippocampus up to in there? Is your pre-post-medial-cerebrum-corta-bellum even working properly? What does neuroscience say about whether you should start each day with a slap in the face? Being incapable of answering these questions ourselves, we're bringing on bonafide neuroscientist and substacker Tommy Blanchard to help us navigate this terrain. Check out Tommy's website and substack, Cognitive Wonderland. We discuss Models of decision-making in neuroscience The common currency model What do we actually know about the brain? What constitutes an explanation in neuroscience? What neuroscience is put on a pedestal Neuro-grifting Gurus, aka Huberman et al. References Tommy's post about his research appearing in the NY Times: https://cognitivewonderland.substack.com/p/scientists-hope-gambling-monkeys Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Become a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube Which area of your brain lights up when you consider sending an email to [email protected]?Special Guest: Tommy Blanchard.

We've spent a long time bashing Bayesian epistemology on the podcast. Unfortunately, this is sometimes taken to mean that we bash all things Bayesian. But our God-fearing listeners will be pleased to learn that we do not bash all things that the Reverend Thomas Bayes stood for. Bayesian statistics, when appropriately separated from epistemology, has many things to teach us. And instead of taking our word for it, we're bringing on an expert in this field: Alex Andorra, a research scientist at Meta and host of the Learning Bayesian Statistics podcast. The Gods Smile. Check out Alex's website and the Learning Bayesian statistics podcast. We discuss 538 and election forecasting Sports analytics and why Messi is objectively the best What is Bayesian statistics? What is the difference between Bayesian and frequentist statistics? What is the allure of Bayesian statistics? Are priors best thought of as beliefs? How do critical rationalists make decisions? References Learning Bayesian Statistics: https://learnbayesstats.com/ Silver Bulletin: https://www.natesilver.net/ Vaden's blog post on decision making: https://vmasrani.github.io/blog/2020/vaden_second_response/#what-other-options-to-decision-theory-are-there # Socials Follow us on Twitter at @alex_andorra, @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Become a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube Send us an email because you have - no, because you want to - over at [email protected] Guest: Alex Andorra.

It's only taken us 104 episodes of talking incessantly about Karl Popper to get one of the most important and popular criticisms of falsification: The Duhem-Quine thesis. Should we wrap the podcast here? Is it game over? We discuss Does AI need more economic thinking? The role of background knowledge in conversation The allure of verificationism The Duhem-Quine thesis The role of competing theories in combatting the thesis Are conspiracies the price we pay for independent thinking? References Michael I. Jordan on ML Street Talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AREWYbVtX64 Our conversation with Ben Recht: https://www.incrementspodcast.com/91 Quotes People involved in a fruitful critical discussion of a problem often rely, if only unconsciously, upon two things: the acceptance by all parties of the common aim of getting at the truth, or at least nearer to the truth, and a considerable amount of common background knowledge. This does not mean that either of these two things is an indispensable basis of every discussion, or that these two things are themselves ‘a priori’, and cannot be critically discussed in their turn. It only means that criticism never starts from nothing, even though every one of its starting points may be challenged, one at a time, in the course of the critical debate. - C&R, Chap 10 While discussing a problem we always accept (if only temporarily) all kinds of things as unproblematic: they constitute for the time being, and for the discussion of this particular problem, what I call our background knowledge. Few parts of this background knowledge will appear to us in all contexts as absolutely unproblematic, and any particular part of it may be challenged at any time, especially if we suspect that its uncritical acceptance may be responsible for some of our difficulties. But almost all of the vast amount of background knowledge which we constantly use in any informal discussion will, for practical reasons, necessarily remain unquestioned; and the misguided attempt to question it all—that is to say, to start from scratch—can easily lead to the breakdown of a critical debate. (Were we to start the race where Adam started, I know of no reason why we should get any further than Adam did.) - C&R, Chap 10 Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Become a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube What kind of thinking does this podcast need? Tell us at [email protected].

Did you ever see the video of two regular people trying to fight Eddie Hall, the strongest man on earth? Ben and Vaden bring that same energy to this conversation, where they gang up on Robert Wright on the subject of his forthcoming book The God Test: Artificial Intelligence and Our Coming Cosmic Reckoning. Bob is a sport about it (well, there was no choice really: we have an advanced copy of his book that we're holding hostage) and there are only one or two black eyes by the end. Subscribe to Robert Wright's podcasting empire NonZero on youtube and substack. And go buy one of his many books. We discuss Whether Bob was the OG podcaster Is there a directionality to evolution? Where Bob is on the AI fear and awe spectrum Whether LLMs have decoded the meaning in language Is AI best viewed as a tool or as superintelligence? AI-as-slingshot analogy References The God Test by Robert Wright Nonzero by Robert Wright William Paley and his pocket watch The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins Our conversation with Scott Aaronson Socials Follow us on Twitter at @RobertWrighter, @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Become a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube What's the directionality of this podcast? Tell us at [email protected] Guest: Robert Wright.

Turning on our own! Vaden sits down with Bruce Nielson and Peter Johansen to discuss some of the bad memes that run rampant in the online "crit-rat" community, in an attempt of some intra-tribal error-correction. Ben, scared of the retribution, runs away with his tail uncomfortably close to his thighs. Follow Bruce and Peter's work on the Theory of Anything Podcast. Sign up for the Theory of Anything podcast Patreon here, and Check out Peter's Many World of David Deutsch facebook group here. We discuss Bruce and Peter's origin stories Anarcho-capitalism and its (pseudo) connections to Popperian philosophy CritRat disbelief in mental illness What does the Universal Explainer hypothesis imply about mental illness and IQ? Is Anarcho-capitalism a foundationalist and utopian philosophy? Why are so many crit-rats Trump supporters? See Also Theory of Anything Podcast #136: Michael Golding on Mental Illness Theory of Anything Podcast #82: Popper's Ratchet Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani, @bnielson01 Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Become a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube I before E except after B? Send your best guess as to the spelling of Bruce's last name (no one knows) over to [email protected] Guest: Bruce Nielson.

Wasn't Popper a falsificationist? Then why did he try to develop ideas about corroboration and versimilitude - the extent to which a theory was closer to truth than another theory? Isn't this verging dangerously close to verificationist territory? In our fourth ep on Chapter 10 in C&R, we wrestle with Popper's treatment of verisimilutude, both the formal and informal versions. Did the project fail? Was Popper out of his mind? Does this invalidate everything? We discuss Murders with ball-peen hammers Walking the line between verification and falsification Is science only after truth? Verisimilutude and its formalization Why the formalization fails Popper's three requirements for the growth of knowledge Popper's ratchet and the no ad-hoc rule Quotes Like many other philosophers I am at times inclined to classify philosophers as belonging to two main groups—those with whom I disagree, and those who agree with me. - C&R, page 309 I shall give here a somewhat unsystematic list of six types of cases in which we should be inclined to say of a theory t1 that it is superseded by t2 in the sense that t2 seems—as far as we know—to correspond better to the facts than t1 , in some sense or other. t2 makes more precise assertions than t1 , and these more precise assertions stand up to more precise tests. t2 takes account of, and explains, more facts than t1 (which will include for example the above case that, other things being equal, t2 ’s assertions are more precise). t2 describes, or explains, the facts in more detail than t1 . t2 has passed tests which t 1 has failed to pass. t2 has suggested new experimental tests, not considered before t 2 was designed (and not suggested by t1 , and perhaps not even applicable to t1 ); and t 2 has passed these tests. t2 has unified or connected various hitherto unrelated problems. - C&R, page 315 Let me first say that I do not suggest that the explicit introduction of the idea of verisimilitude will lead to any changes in the theory of method. On the contrary, I think that my theory of testability or corroboration by empirical tests is the proper methodological counterpart to this new metalogical idea. The only improvement is one of clarification. - C&R, page 318 Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Become a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube How many chromosomes does diethyl-methyl pentophosphate have, exactly? Tell as at [email protected]

100 episodes! To celebrate, Vaden tries to get personal with Ben, while Ben dodges his questions and wants to know how Vaden feels about incest. All in all, a pretty typical episode. The questions From Vaden to Ben: How is your side hustle going? Who are some of your major influences outside of Popper? How has the Popperian worldview influenced your day-to-day? What is the life of a nomadic academic like? What would you say to people who are considering mathematics as a career? Which charities do you recommend? From Ben to Vaden: How do you feel about looksmaxxing? Thoughts on medical assistance in dying? Ethics of Alex Honnold free soloing Taipei 101? Thoughts on Nation-Buiding? Incest - into it? Episode References #22 - Thinking Through Thought Experiments #66 - Sex Research, Addiction, and Financial Domination (w/ Aella) #58 - Ask Us Anything V: How to Read and What to Read #70 - ... and Bayes Bites Back (w/ Richard Meadows) #76 (Bonus) - Is P(doom) meaningful? Debating epistemology (w/ Liron Shapira) References Angus Deaton debates Abhijit Banerjee: https://nyudri.wordpress.com/initiatives/deaton-v-banerjee/ Christopher Hitchens and Robert Wright Sam Harris and Garry Kasparov Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power The Bomb in My Garden: The Secrets of Saddam's Nuclear Mastermind Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Become a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube What is your favorite form of ince... actually nevermind, too much. Just email us at [email protected].