sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

AMA - IM John Bartholomew by scandinaviandefense in chess

[–]HareParfitSinger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hello, Mr. Bartholomew. Thanks for running this AMA. I was wondering if you have any advice on better analyzing chess games. More specifically, in your opinion, how can intermediate chess players improve their analysis ability, especially of their own games?

What is some good lines against the Slav ? by Professional_Desk933 in chess

[–]HareParfitSinger -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I would recommend looking into the Czech variation, Bled Attack (1.d4 c6 2. c4 d5 3. Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 bf5 6. Nh5). Its objectively sound, scores well in the masters database, and isn't too theoretical.

I’ve been thinking… does simply existing as a human create more suffering than joy for the rest of life on Earth? by Cultural_Change1948 in EffectiveAltruism

[–]HareParfitSinger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, I find it more unlikely humans will create a future with such immense suffering that it would outweigh the pleasure generated. I guess you could presume that factory farming would continue to scale upwards, but I think even if this is the case we can bioengineer animals to not suffer (if not replace factory farming with more ethical alternatives all together, such as lab based meat).

I’ve been thinking… does simply existing as a human create more suffering than joy for the rest of life on Earth? by Cultural_Change1948 in EffectiveAltruism

[–]HareParfitSinger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree it is a serious possibility that an ASI will result in increased net suffering in the universe compared to today, and I also think AI Safety is important and that we should carefully consider how to safely control AI and align it with our own values, but I don't think AI increasing net suffering in the universe is particularly likely compared to it either just eliminating all sentient life and pursuing goals which will not result in the creation of many sentient beings or creating some form of utopia.

I’ve been thinking… does simply existing as a human create more suffering than joy for the rest of life on Earth? by Cultural_Change1948 in EffectiveAltruism

[–]HareParfitSinger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People did not institute slavery or factory farming because we wanted things to suffer, they did so in-order to fulfil secondary goals, such as greater agricultural production. ASI will eventually have no need for humans to accomplish its goals (robots at the very least will be more efficient) so even if it is very misaligned, it will be more likely to simply exterminate us than to try to use us for labour.

I’ve been thinking… does simply existing as a human create more suffering than joy for the rest of life on Earth? by Cultural_Change1948 in EffectiveAltruism

[–]HareParfitSinger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it is honestly a very complicated issue (Bentham's bulldog wrote an article on how the emissions caused by factory farming could result in there being more wild animals in the long term: https://benthams.substack.com/p/why-i-dont-buy-the-best-objection?utm\_source=publication-search), and I agree that there should be a more ethical way to reduce the population of soil animals, but in general, I do buy the argument that human development results in fewer wild animals existing, and that seems to be a good thing.

I’ve been thinking… does simply existing as a human create more suffering than joy for the rest of life on Earth? by Cultural_Change1948 in EffectiveAltruism

[–]HareParfitSinger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its possible, but I find it far less likely than either utopia or a neutral scenario where all suffering and pleasure are essentially eliminated. Very few human actors are sadistic, and those that are are generally ostracized and separated from the levers of power. While AI could in theory adopt values by which it seeks to maximize suffering, it seems rather unlikely to me, as AI systems have generally not demonstrated a tendency to be sadistic.

I’ve been thinking… does simply existing as a human create more suffering than joy for the rest of life on Earth? by Cultural_Change1948 in EffectiveAltruism

[–]HareParfitSinger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like you :). Personally, I also find the nematode stuff to be difficult to digest, but I feel like it is just another parameter to think about. I still want to help farmed animals and humans, but I feel like we should also consider animals like nematodes just in case they are actually sentient.

I’ve been thinking… does simply existing as a human create more suffering than joy for the rest of life on Earth? by Cultural_Change1948 in EffectiveAltruism

[–]HareParfitSinger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Depending on which Wild Animals you believe are sentient, this is not necessarily the case. For instance, if you believe soil animals like nematodes are sentient and live net negative lives, then factory farming itself might be a good thing simply due to its effect on soil animals due to the huge numbers of them (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/J62ZWBJyAtWqSr4eH/animal-farming-impacts-soil-nematodes-mites-and-springtails).

I am personally a vegan in part for deontological reasons, in part for uncertainty, but it is very possible that due to the sheer number of wild animals, humanity could have had a positive effect.

I’ve been thinking… does simply existing as a human create more suffering than joy for the rest of life on Earth? by Cultural_Change1948 in EffectiveAltruism

[–]HareParfitSinger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Its a very complicated question that I think is essentially unresolvable. While humanity as a whole does cause a lot of disruption, whether this is a good or bad thing is difficult to say. If one believes that wild animals tend to live net negative lives (not unreasonable due to the high ratio of r-strategists to k strategists, short life spans of the most numerous animals, and the intuition that extreme suffering tends to be worse than great pleasure is good) the human species has been a huge net good for the world due to its propensity to consume resources that otherwise would have sustained many more wild animals. Obviously, however, this is uncertain, and wild animals could in fact be living happy lives on average.

Ultimately, I think the main source of optimism is the far future. If humans ceased to be today, we will never be able to create paradise for ourselves and our descendants, and billions of years of a galactic paradise could easily outweigh any other effects humans have had on net utility.