Podcasts about policy space

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Schelling points in the AGI policy space, published by mesaoptimizer on June 27, 2024 on LessWrong. I've been thinking about memetically fit Schelling points in the AGI policy space. I'll describe four such "Schelling policies", and use them as pedagogical examples. Shut it all down MIRI's new stated objective is the clearest example of a Schelling policy: "Shut it all down". MIRI states that they want governments to coordinate to pause all AI research that involves smarter-than-human systems. Laypeople will find this policy easy to understand, since they can rely on the shared cultural knowledge of CFC bans and international nuclear disarmament as case studies. If you want to coordinate a large number of people coherently towards furthering a particular policy, "you get about five words" that you can make 'common knowledge' such that people can coordinate in a specific direction. The ease of communicating the policy makes a big difference in such conditions. When you attempt to communicate an idea widely, you'll notice that people usually end up with multiple slightly (or sometimes wildly) differing copies of the original idea. If you've played the Telephone game, you've experienced just how much information can be lost as an idea spreads from one person to another. In the context of policies, individual people's beliefs and incentives will warp the instantiation of the policy they will communicate and support. (For example, you'll find companies lobbying regulators to carve out exceptions that benefit them.) Here's where Schelling points are invaluable: they serve as natural attractors in the space of ideas, and therefore enable people to 'error-correct' the idea they encounter and figure out the policy that everyone is coordinating around. "Shut it all down" is a Schelling point. "Shut it all down if we see evidence of unprompted deception and power-seeking in AGI models" is not a Schelling point, you have multiple free variables that can and will be optimized to benefit the people spreading the idea -- which can result in a lack of coordination and the idea being outcompeted by memetically fitter ideas. "Prevent the training of models using compute greater than 1025 floating point operations" also has a free variable: why exactly 1025 floating point operations? Why not 1024 or 1026? Until 1025 floating point operations becomes a Schelling number, the policy containing it is not a Schelling point. Effective Accelerationism (e/acc) The biggest difference between e/acc and the PauseAI memeplexes is that e/acc doesn't seem to have a coherent set of goals and beliefs. Here are a bunch of memes that e/acc people tend to espouse: "It's time to build." (also the last line of The Techno-Optimist Manifesto) "Come and take it." (where "it" refers to GPUs here) "Accelerate or die." At a first glance, one might say that e/acc isn't a Schelling policy -- it seems less like a coherent policy, and more like a set of 'vibes', verbal and non-verbal statements designed to create a desired emotional impact, regardless of the actual content. I disagree. A policy (or well, a memeplex) does not need to have an explicitly coherent set of beliefs and goals for it to result in coordinating people towards particular consequences. You might expect this to reduce the spread rate of this particular policy, but e/acc specifically compensates for it by being significantly more fun and socially, financially, and professionally profitable to coordinate around. For example, venture capital firms such as a16z want the opportunity to make a lot of money from the gold rush that is the race to AGI, and a lot of software developers want a shot at making billions of dollars if their startup succeeds. The possibility of regulations would cause the music to stop, and they don't want that. In fact, you don...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Schelling points in the AGI policy space, published by mesaoptimizer on June 27, 2024 on LessWrong. I've been thinking about memetically fit Schelling points in the AGI policy space. I'll describe four such "Schelling policies", and use them as pedagogical examples. Shut it all down MIRI's new stated objective is the clearest example of a Schelling policy: "Shut it all down". MIRI states that they want governments to coordinate to pause all AI research that involves smarter-than-human systems. Laypeople will find this policy easy to understand, since they can rely on the shared cultural knowledge of CFC bans and international nuclear disarmament as case studies. If you want to coordinate a large number of people coherently towards furthering a particular policy, "you get about five words" that you can make 'common knowledge' such that people can coordinate in a specific direction. The ease of communicating the policy makes a big difference in such conditions. When you attempt to communicate an idea widely, you'll notice that people usually end up with multiple slightly (or sometimes wildly) differing copies of the original idea. If you've played the Telephone game, you've experienced just how much information can be lost as an idea spreads from one person to another. In the context of policies, individual people's beliefs and incentives will warp the instantiation of the policy they will communicate and support. (For example, you'll find companies lobbying regulators to carve out exceptions that benefit them.) Here's where Schelling points are invaluable: they serve as natural attractors in the space of ideas, and therefore enable people to 'error-correct' the idea they encounter and figure out the policy that everyone is coordinating around. "Shut it all down" is a Schelling point. "Shut it all down if we see evidence of unprompted deception and power-seeking in AGI models" is not a Schelling point, you have multiple free variables that can and will be optimized to benefit the people spreading the idea -- which can result in a lack of coordination and the idea being outcompeted by memetically fitter ideas. "Prevent the training of models using compute greater than 1025 floating point operations" also has a free variable: why exactly 1025 floating point operations? Why not 1024 or 1026? Until 1025 floating point operations becomes a Schelling number, the policy containing it is not a Schelling point. Effective Accelerationism (e/acc) The biggest difference between e/acc and the PauseAI memeplexes is that e/acc doesn't seem to have a coherent set of goals and beliefs. Here are a bunch of memes that e/acc people tend to espouse: "It's time to build." (also the last line of The Techno-Optimist Manifesto) "Come and take it." (where "it" refers to GPUs here) "Accelerate or die." At a first glance, one might say that e/acc isn't a Schelling policy -- it seems less like a coherent policy, and more like a set of 'vibes', verbal and non-verbal statements designed to create a desired emotional impact, regardless of the actual content. I disagree. A policy (or well, a memeplex) does not need to have an explicitly coherent set of beliefs and goals for it to result in coordinating people towards particular consequences. You might expect this to reduce the spread rate of this particular policy, but e/acc specifically compensates for it by being significantly more fun and socially, financially, and professionally profitable to coordinate around. For example, venture capital firms such as a16z want the opportunity to make a lot of money from the gold rush that is the race to AGI, and a lot of software developers want a shot at making billions of dollars if their startup succeeds. The possibility of regulations would cause the music to stop, and they don't want that. In fact, you don...

Download These 3 Free Gifts Right Now at https://www.10minutestocktrader.com The Triple Stock Profit System e-Book The "How To Find 100%+ Winners" Free Training The Bullish Power Cheat Sheet To find out more about the Economic Impact of Joe Biden's Tax Plan you must click: https://www.10minutestocktrader.com The video is presenting the Economic Impact of Joe Biden's Tax Plan valuable information but also try to cover the following subject: -Biden's tax policy -will Joe Biden raise taxes -Biden tax plan explained Something I discovered when I was searching for info on the Economic Impact of Joe Biden's Tax Plan was the lack of relevant details. The economic Impact of Joe Biden's Tax Plan nevertheless is a subject that I understand something about. This video therefore should be relevant and of interest to you. My Name is Christopher Uhl and I'm an Award-Winning Trader, Entrepreneur, Author, Podcaster, Speaker, and Coach who partners with entrepreneurial traders and everyday investors looking to get ahead around the world to help them change their financial futures. Follow these steps to get started on your journey to becoming a 10 Minute Trader too! Step #1: Get the 100% FREE secret weapon that investors all over the world are using to start changing their financial future here: https://www.triplestockprofits.com Step #2: Want to See How We Use Artificial Intelligence To Get Win Rates As High as 90%, Without Wasting Any Time on Useless and Obsolete Technical Analysis... Go Right Now to https://www.finclub.ai and see for yourself how they take the guesswork out of trading! Step #3 Do you have the premier options, trading broker? If you have any other brokers, I want you to stop and go to https://www.trytastyworks.com right now. I have an incredible offer for you, just sign up for a FREE account with Tastyworks using offer code 10MINUTE and I will give you nearly $1,500 in FREE bonuses just for creating a FREE account! It doesn't get any easier than that! Step #4 This Is The BEST Charting Platform I've Ever Used, Get 15% (or more!) Off Your First Year! TRENDSPIDER - The Future of Trading Software https://trendspider.10minutestocktrader.com Step #5 Get A FREE Copy Of The Book I Use As My Business Plan To Grow From Zero to Seven Figures... Expert Secrets - Find Your Message, Build A Tribe, And Change The World... https://expertsecrets.10minutestocktrader.com For more information please visit: https://www.10minutestocktrader.com/legal

Kevin O'Neill calls in for hour one to preview the Federal Reserve meeting before talking Evergrande and Notre Dame's upcoming matchup with Wisconsin at Soldier Field in Chicago. Russell Rhoads calls in for hour two to continue the Evergrande discussion before talking Treasury yields and much more.

Several countries are vying for the African continent’s attention. While there has been considerable attention on China’s and India’s motives and interests, Russia, Germany, France, the UK, Turkey, Japan, South Korea and Middle Eastern countries are all trying to increase their footprint on the continent. An important first step for many of these countries is to organize a summit – a major gathering of leaders and other high-level officials to discuss how African countries can further strengthen trade and diplomatic relations with this one country hosting the summit. The goal of these events is basically to promote the idea of achieving win-win outcomes for all involved parties. This growth in so-called Africa plus 1 summit diplomacy has generated renewed interest in better understanding the growing competition among major world powers on the continent. But in trying to explain this growing interest in strengthening relations with African countries, there is often a tendency to downplay the role and influence of African countries in setting the agenda of these high-profile events, and how African leaders articulate their needs and interests. My guest this week argues that we really need to better understand the motives behind the increased engagement in ‘Africa + 1’ summitry by African politicians and bureaucrats.Indeed, rather than viewing these individuals as passive participants, we must recognize the numerous ways in which such summits and other high-level platforms that involve the continent, offer opportunities for African leaders to express and exert agency in both symbolic and substantial ways.Dr Folashadé Soulé is a Senior Research Associate at the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford. She studies agency in Africa’s international relations and the politics of South-South cooperation. She is also the initiator of the Africa-China negotiation workshop series, which brings together African negotiators and senior policymakers to exchange and build better negotiation practices when dealing with China. '"Africa+1" summit diplomacy and the ‘new scramble’ narrative: Recentering African agency', African Affairs, volume 119, Issue 477, October 2020, pp. 633–646'How popular is China in Africa? New survey sheds light on what ordinary people think', The Conversation, November 2020'Tips for African Negotiators Doing Deals with China: Rebalancing Asymmetries', Natural Resource Governance Initiative (NRGI) blog post, February 2020Folashadé Soulé  on TwitterDan Banik and In Pursuit of Development on Twitter

It's an age-old question: how do we get people to do what we want them to do? Well, if you're the government, you might leverage the social security system and withhold payments as punishment, or as “encouragement”. ANU social policy academic Dr Katie Curchin finds this method problematic, and argues instead for a social security system that treats people with greater respect and decency. She's looked in particular at the 'No Jab, No Pay' policy. In this episode, Katie talks about ways that not only governments, but we as individuals, could have greater success promoting certain behaviours without using carrots or sticks. There are lessons for both improving vaccination rates, parenting – and much more. ... Dr Katherine Curchin is a Lecturer in Social Policy within the ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods and an Honorary Lecturer in the ANU School of Philosophy. Her research explores the extent to which policy can and should aim to change the behaviour of people living in poverty. Her published writing contributes to international debates on topics such as the ethics of welfare conditionality and nudging. From 2014 to 2018 she worked at the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research where she held an ARC DECRA which enabled her to examine rival visions of Indigenous Australians’ relationship with the Australian welfare state. She is an editor of the Australian Journal of Social Issues and she has published in international journals such as the Journal of Political Philosophy, the Journal of Social Policy, the International Political Science Review and Women’s Studies International Forum. Read her Policy Space blog post ‘How Much Behavioural Conditionality is Too Much?’, which relates to this episode’s discussion. … The theme music for Better Things is “One More Time” by Fab Beat. Better Things is a production of the ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences. It’s produced by Evana Ho. You can find us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram @ANUCASS. Listen to our other podcast This Academic's Life: pivotal events and experiences that shaped the lives, careers and research of our academics.

Mario Pianta (Scuola Normale Superiore, Firenze) The objectives of developing high-knowledge economic activities, expanding industry, reaching environmental sustainability and achieving greater convergence are clearly stated in the Europe 2020 strategy and in the more recent policy documents of the European Union (EU). Such objectives, however, lack a coherent strategy, an appropriate institutional setting and adequate resources for affecting the evolution of Europe’s economies. These challenges can be addressed with the tools that were typical of industrial policy, but with a deeply revised approach. This article examines the main actions in the field of industrial policy currently carried out at the European level. The present and potential space for such initiatives is examined in the light of the growing debate on the need for a return to a greater role for public policies in favouring sustainable growth, supporting private investments and reducing the economic divergence across EU Member States after the outbreak of the 2008 financial crisis. In view of the debate on the new EU budget 2021-2017, a proposal for a new type of industrial policy with the goal of supporting well-defined technological and production activities and assuring greater democracy in economic decision making is outlined. Speakers: Mario Pianta (Scuola Normale Superiore, Firenze), Antonio Andreoni (SOAS) Released by: SOAS Economics Podcasts

Tim, Catherine and David discuss Donald Trump's  immigration policy, space force and more!

Jane Harrigan (SOAS), Nicholas Vagen-Weeks (SOAS) and David Keen (LSE) The dynamic inter-linkages between food security and conflict are increasingly being recognised as key issues in both conflict studies and work on food and nutrition security. Food and conflict have become intimately related in many conflict zones such as in current day Syria and Somalia and famine studies have long acknowledged the importance of war famine. Lack of food security and struggles over food-related natural resources such as land can be important sources and triggers of conflict whilst conflict itself usually worsens food and nutrition security. It does so in two ways. Firstly indirectly by threatening entitlements to food and increasing vulnerabilities, for example via the disruption of agricultural production and secondly, more directly when food is used as a weapon of war for example by withholding food or food aid from certain groups or plundering resources such as cattle and livestock. More recently, it has also been acknowledged that food issues are important in the transition from conflict and in rebuilding post-conflict societies and that this has to be approached from a political as well as a socio-economic perspective. This panel aims to draw together several papers on this topic making use of diverse country studies from both an academic and development practitioner perspective. This episode features Panel 4 of the Workshop on ‘Political Economy Approaches to Food Regimes.’ This one-day workshop, was organised by the SOAS University of London Food, Nutrition and Health in Development Research Custer and brought together topics in contemporary food regime studies examined from a political economy perspective. Topics included inequality and food security, the state and food sovereignty, food regimes and the politics of conflict and financialisation of food. Paper One: ‘Food Security in Palestine - The Effects of Occupation on Policy Space’ by Prof Jane Harrigan (SOAS University of London, UK) Paper Two: ‘The Political Economy of Food in the Syria Crisis’ by Nicholas Vagen-Weeks (SOAS University of London, UK) Paper Three: ‘Starving Them: Causes and Functions in Sudan, Syria and Yemen’ by Professor David Keen (LSE, UK) Organiser: SOAS University of London Food, Nutrition and Health in Development Research Custer Event Date: 19 January 2018 Released by: SOAS Economics Podcast

This is the presentation given by Manuel Montes at the UNRISD Seminar "Institutions, Governance and Policy Space: Redesigning the International Economic Architecture for Development" [36 minutes]

Dr. Kevin P. Gallagher is an associate professor of international relations at Boston University, where he directs the Global Development Policy Program. He is also senior researcher at the Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University. Professor Gallagher is the author of The Dragon in the Room: China and the Future of Latin American Industrialization, with Roberto Porzecanski (Stanford University Press, 2010); The Enclave Economy: Foreign Investment and Sustainable Development in Mexico's Silicon Valley, with Lyuba Zarsky (MIT Press, 2007); Free Trade and the Environment: Mexico, NAFTA, and Beyond (Stanford University Press, 2004); and editor of Putting Development First: The Importance of Policy Space in the WTO and IFIs (Zed Books, 2005). He has served as visiting or adjunct professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University; Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government; El Colegio de Mexico in Mexico, and Tsinghua University in China. He currently serves on the investment subcommittee of the US Department of State's of the Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy, and the US Environmental Protection Agency's National Advisory Committee for Mexico. Professor Gallagher writes regular columns on global economic and development policy for The Guardian, Financial Times, and POLITICO.

Dr. Kevin P. Gallagher is an associate professor of international relations at Boston University, where he directs the Global Development Policy Program. He is also senior researcher at the Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University. Professor Gallagher is the author of The Dragon in the Room: China and the Future of Latin American Industrialization, with Roberto Porzecanski (Stanford University Press, 2010); The Enclave Economy: Foreign Investment and Sustainable Development in Mexico's Silicon Valley, with Lyuba Zarsky (MIT Press, 2007); Free Trade and the Environment: Mexico, NAFTA, and Beyond (Stanford University Press, 2004); and editor of Putting Development First: The Importance of Policy Space in the WTO and IFIs (Zed Books, 2005). He has served as visiting or adjunct professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University; Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government; El Colegio de Mexico in Mexico, and Tsinghua University in China. He currently serves on the investment subcommittee of the US Department of State's of the Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy, and the US Environmental Protection Agency's National Advisory Committee for Mexico. Professor Gallagher writes regular columns on global economic and development policy for The Guardian, Financial Times, and POLITICO.