Well, there's no avoiding controversy with this one. We explain, examine, and attempt to refute the shiny new moral philosophy of longtermism. Our critique focuses on The Case for Strong Longtermism by Hilary Greaves and Will MacAskill.

We say so in the episode, but it's important to emphasize that we harbour no animosity towards anyone in the effective altruism community. However, we both think that longtermism is pretty f***ing scary and do our best to communicate why.

Confused as to why there's no charming, witty, and hilarious intro? Us too. Somehow, Ben managed to corrupt his audio. Classic. Oh well, some of you tell us you dislike the intros anyway.

References

• The Case for Strong Longtermism, by Greaves and MacAskill
• Vaden's EA forum post on longtermism
• The reddit discussion surrounding Vaden's piece
• Ben's piece on longtermism (which he has hidden in the depths of Medium because he's scared of the EA forum) 
• Ben on Pascal's Mugging and Expected Values
• Gwern and Robin Hanson making fun of Ben's piece 

Yell at us on the EA forum, on Reddit, on Medium, or over email at [email protected]. 

Support Increments

Vaden comes battle-hardened and ready to debate and is met with ... a big soft hug from Ben. Ben repents his apocalyptic sins and admits that Vaden changed his mind. Again. God dammit this is getting annoying. To his credit, Vaden only gloats for 10 minutes.  Eventually we touch on some other topics: 

• technology as filling niches
• when is outrage appropriate? 
• the upsides of social media 
• conversation as a substitute for violence 

Much love to everyone and stay safe out there! Send us some feedback at [email protected] 

Support Increments

Alright spiders, point this at your brain. Ben and Vaden do a deep dive into the recent Netflix documentary The Social Dilemma and have a genuine debate, just like the good ol' days.  Topics touched:

• Why Vaden dislikes documentaries, and this one in particular
• Is reliance on social media a problem?
• The advertisement model
• The relationship between social media and mental health
• ... and political polarization
• ... and outrage in general
• Epistemological erosion
• Wars of words and swords

Outraged? Polarized? Radicalized, even?  We want to hear about it at [email protected].

Quotes referenced in episode:

"This point being crossed is at the root of addiction, polarization, radicalization, outrageification, vanityification, the entire thing. This is overpowering human nature, and this is checkmate on humanity."
- Tristan Harris, The Social Dilemma

"If we go down the current status quo for, let's say, another 20 years... we probably destroy our civilization through willful ignorance. We probably fail to meet the challenge of climate change. We probably degrade the world's democracies so that they fall into some sort of bizarre autocratic dysfunction. We probably ruin the global economy.  Uh, we probably, um, don't survive.  You know, I... I really do view it as existential."
- Jaron Lanier, The Social Dilemma

"We're pointing these engines of AI back at ourselves to reverse-engineer what elicits responses from us. Almost like you're stimulating nerve cells on a spider to see what causes its legs to respond. So, it really is this kind of prison experiment where we're just, you know, roping people into the matrix, and we're just harvesting all this money and... and data from all their activity to profit from."
- Tristan Harris, The Social Dilemma

"Although I am an admirer of tradition, and conscious of its importance, I am, at the same time, an almost orthodox adherent of unorthodoxy: I hold that orthodoxy is the death of knowledge, since the growth of knowledge depends entirely on the existence of disagreement. Admittedly, disagreement may lead to strife, and even to violence. And this, I think, is very bad indeed, for I abhor violence. Yet disagreement may also lead to discussion, to argument, and to mutual criticism. And these, I think, are of paramount importance. I suggest that the greatest step towards a better and more peaceful world was taken when the war of swords was first supported, and later sometimes even replaced, by a war of words."
- Karl Popper, The Myth Of The Framework

References:

• Welcome to the Cult Factory (Tristan Harris's latest appearance on Making Sense)
• Michael Moore’s 13 Rules for Making Documentary Films
• How to assess a documentary
• Twitter Study showing only 1% of users are polarized, and the rest moderate
• Literature review of social media use and mental health by Jonathan Haidt and Jean Twenge. Conclusion? It's complicated.
• Study showing self reports of time spent on social media are not reliable. This is relevant because most studies showing a link between social media use and deteriorating mental health rely on self reports. 
• Not Born Yesterday by Hugo Mercier

Errata: 
Vaden keeps saying "Jared Lanier" when it should be "Jaron Lanier". Oops!

Support Increments

The third in the Conjectures and Refutations series, we cover Chapter 16: Prediction And Prophecy in the Social Sciences. There's a bit more Hitler stuff in this one than usual (retweets  ≠ endorsements), but only because he provides a clear example of the motherlode of all bad ideas - historicism. We discuss:

• What historicism is and why it sucks
• Prediction vs prophecy
• Differences between the physical sciences and social sciences
• The success of prediction in the physical sciences
• The role of the social sciences
• What are laws of nature?

Plus a little easter egg! As always send us a little sumptin' sumptin' at [email protected].

Quotes:
"In memory of the countless men, women and children of all creeds or nations or races who fell victims to the fascist and communist belief in Inexorable Laws of Historical Destiny."
- Epigraph of The Poverty of Historicism

"It was not by mere chance that the first forms of civilisation arose where the Aryan came into contact with inferior races, subjugated them and forced them to obey his command. The members of the inferior race became the first mechanical tools in the service of a growing civilisation. Thereby the way was clearly indicated which the Aryan had to follow.

As a conqueror, he subjugated inferior races and turned their physical powers into organised channels under his own leadership, forcing them to follow his will and purpose.

By imposing on them a useful, though hard, manner of employing their powers, he not only spared the lives of those whom he had conquered, but probably made their lives easier than they had been in the former state of so-called 'freedom.'" (italics added)
- Mein Kampf (The Stalag Edition), Chapter XI: Nation and Race

“But it is clear that the adoption of the conspiracy theory can hardly be avoided by those who believe that they know how to make heaven on earth. The only explanation for their failure to produce this heaven is the malevolence of the devil who has a vested interest in hell.”
- Conjectures and Refutations, Chapter 16: Prediction and Prophecy in the Social Sciences

Support Increments

Stephen is back for round two! In this episode we learn that Vaden wants to live in a panopticon and Ben in a high tech surveillance state. Also, we're all going to use Bing from now on. 

Stephen Caines is a research fellow at Stanford law school's CodeX centre for legal informatics, where he specializes in the domestic use of facial recognition technology. He received a J.D. from  the University of Miami  with a concentration in the Business of Innovation, Law, and Technology.  

Bring on da feedback at [email protected]; we check it at least once a month ...

Special Guest: Stephen Caines.

Support Increments

In the lead up to the American presidential election, one of the largest and most consequential expressions of public opinion, Ben and Vaden do what they always do and ask: "What does Popper say about this?" The second in the Conjectures and Refutations series, we cover Chapter 17: Public Opinion and Liberal Principles.  Largely irrelevant and probably unhelpful, we touch 

• A thesis that the far left and right are converging vis-a-vis reactionary politics
• The idea that "truth is manifest", i.e. obvious 
• The role of free speech and diversity of opinion
• Political polarization
• Libertarians and their hate of seatbelts

Send us some hate or some love at [email protected].

Chapter excerpt:
The following remarks were designed to provide material for debate at an international conference of liberals (...). My purpose was simply to lay the foundations for a good general discussion. Because I could assume liberal views in my audience I was largely concerned to challenge, rather than endorse, popular assumptions favourable to these views.

Support Increments

Vaden's arguments against Bayesian philosophy and existential risk are examined by someone who might actually know what they're talking about, i.e., not Ben. After writing a critique of our conversation in Episode 7, which started off a series of blog posts, our good friend Mauricio (who studies political science, economics, and philosophy) kindly agrees to come on the podcast and try to figure out who's more confused. Does Vaden convert?

Support Increments

Traditions, what are you good for? Absolutely nothing? In this episode of Increments, Ben and Vaden begin their series on Conjectures and Refutations by looking at the role tradition plays in society, and examine one tradition in particular - the critical tradition. No monkeys were harmed in the making of this episode.


References:
- C&R, Chapter 4: Towards a Rational Theory of Tradition


Podcast shoutout:
- Jennifer Doleac and Rob Wiblin on policing, law and incarceration
- James Foreman Jr. on the US criminal legal system

audio updated 26/12/2020

Support Increments

The talented Stephen Caines punctures the cloud of confusion that is Ben and Vaden's conception of facial recognition technology. We talk about the development and usage of facial recognition in the private and public spheres, the dangers and merits of the technology, and Vaden's plan to use it a bars. For God's sake don't give that man a GPU.

Stephen is a legal technologist with a passion for access to justice. He is a 2019 graduate of the University of Miami School of Law with a concentration in the Business of Innovation, Law, and Technology. While in law school, his work focused on public interest, legal aid organizations, and non-profits. He was a 2018 Access to Justice Technology Fellow and has worked with the Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. on a variety of technology initiatives aimed at optimizing their operations. Additionally, he worked on the legislative and technology policy team of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. Stephen’s current work focuses on developing standards and best practices for the safe and ethical implementation of technology in the public sector.

References: 

• Stephen's website.
• Perpetual Lineup Project (out of Georgetown)
• Stephen on the Our Data podcast
• IBM, Amazon, and Microsoft put moratoria on some aspects of their FRT technology. 
• Clearview AI 

Special Guest: Stephen Caines.

Support Increments

On the same page at last! Ben comes to the philosophical confessional to announce his probabilistic sins. The Bayesians will be pissed (with high probability). At least Vaden doesn't make him kiss anything. After too much agreement and self-congratulation, Ben and Vaden conclude the mini-series on the philosophy of probability, and "announce" an upcoming mega-series on Conjectures and Refutations.


References:
- My Bayesian Enlightenment by Eliezer Yudkowsky

Rationalist community blogs:
- Less Wrong
- Slate Star Codex
- Marginal Revolution

Yell at us at [email protected]. 

Support Increments