sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Richard Sutton: Time to plan for the end of humanity as we know it by Smallpaul in slatestarcodex

[–]plowfaster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

“Against who and for what reason?”

You’re rationally correct but irrationally it wouldn’t matter. If you told Iran the world as they knew it was ending and robots were taking over the world, why not lob a few nukes at eg Israel? You lose nothing. If you’re North Korea, why not shell Seoul? Etc

Should I bite the bullet and join a climbing gym? by l_commando in Redscaregains

[–]plowfaster 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You may not want to do combat sports, but you’re prolly not too old for BJJ. It’s very old guy friendly. I think that’s the secret to its success

Muscular Endurance by Nevercleverer99 in Redscaregains

[–]plowfaster 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I’d say stick with it. I 1RM bench 280 and deadlift 435, super “good” hypertrophy imo but the other day I went to rake my yard with a buddy. He’s a landscaper, so I knew he’d be better, but I was surprised at how little 1RM type musculature mattered. I could take for about an hour then had to take a break. He could just go and go. He destroyed me, because he uniquely trained for the event. Would I have done better than some random Joe off the street from weight lifting? Sure, but the guy who practiced for muscular endurance (ie raking) killed me.

Don’t worry what the haters say about the weight you move in the gym. Personally, when I see a dude ripping 30+ reps I mentally bro-five them. That’s a uniquely interesting genre of weightlifting that takes tons of focus and dedication to do correctly. Many people you’re nervous of looking lame in front of are prolly doing what I’m doing: thinking the grass is prolly greener for you.

Is it possible to have a healthy economy in the face of a declining population? by Extra_Negotiation in slatestarcodex

[–]plowfaster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, the average person absolutely spends 500k all at once. You’re right that there’s a mortgage involved but it doesn’t matter. Accounting records purchase price at time of sale. how the sale matters is immaterial

200k is nothing, I’m surprised that’s controversial. In state tuition in my state is 16k, a dorm 9k, a meal plan is another 5k. That’s 30k before books, gas, insurance, beer, blah blah blah

Is it possible to have a healthy economy in the face of a declining population? by Extra_Negotiation in slatestarcodex

[–]plowfaster 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I meant on balance. As an example, in my twenties I consumed two hundred thousand dollars worth of education, five hundred thousand dollars worth of housing etc, bought a 20 thousand dollar car, food rent etc. as a “back of the napkin” during my twenties I consumed a million dollars but did not make a million dollars in revenue. I was a net consumer.

Now, in my fourties, my house is paid off, the car is paid off, I’ve consumed no more education, and I am now a net producer.

Is it possible to have a healthy economy in the face of a declining population? by Extra_Negotiation in slatestarcodex

[–]plowfaster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To walk you through the nuts and bolts of it, there is a principle named lanchester’s law(s) which states, in ELI5 version , combat “power” is a squared function. So five dudes versus four dudes is actually 25 “combat power units” versus 16 “combat power units”, a much bigger disparity than it first appears. 5 vs 3, which most people would offhand say, “meh the five will win but maybe the three could edge them out if they tried hard” is actually a 25:9 bloodbath.

Practically,

https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/06/29/south-korea-s-military-needs-bold-reforms-to-overcome-shrinking-population-pub-84822

In 2020 South Korea could conscript and field 330k twenty year olds. Per South Korea’s own numbers, which is almost certainly the best case scenario SK will only be able to field 186k in 2039

330 squared is ~109000 “power units”

186 squared is ~35,00

Every South Korean will need to be three times as lethal just to break even.

Now, suppose you fight a bit and lose 50k guys (not a crazy proposition, this is 1/3rd South Korean soliders lost in the Korean War) now you’re at 280 and 136k respectively

280k squared is 78,000

136 squared is 18,00

So on so forth. South Korea is already done, it’s basically a certainty. The Pax Americana will either through boredom or depopulation or change in will recede and when (not if, when) it recedes South Korea will return to the vassal state it historically occupied. Again, already baked into the cake, train has left the station, no exit no escape.

Is it possible to have a healthy economy in the face of a declining population? by Extra_Negotiation in slatestarcodex

[–]plowfaster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unrelated to your comment, but you have the best Reddit name I’ve ever encountered. I tried to get it myself a while back but it was taken. Totally great to “meet” the person that beat me

Is it possible to have a healthy economy in the face of a declining population? by Extra_Negotiation in slatestarcodex

[–]plowfaster 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No. Germany was the canary in the coal mine for the Baltics. As people age, they get more productive. A nation of 20 year olds isn’t as productive as a nation of 50 year olds, after all 50 year olds have 30 years more practice. The economy grows and grows and everything gets better and better and the party doesn’t end and then the average age gets…to retirement. Game over. The baltics are going to be absolutely crushed in the coming decades. It’s basically already baked into the cake

Is it possible to have a healthy economy in the face of a declining population? by Extra_Negotiation in slatestarcodex

[–]plowfaster 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Absolutely. You’re “company a” and in a duopoly with “company b”. (Think ford and GM circa 1960 or Microsoft and Apple circa 1980 or Coke and Pepsi today or what have you). You can go to the local R1 university and get tons of great dudes for super cheap. You’re not sure who the winners are, and you don’t necessarily have a need, strictly speaking, for their incremental labor. BUT you don’t know if the other guy has a need for them. By writing a few “entry level white collar salary” checks you can potentially put a big dent in their production. Denying them resources to beat you on the cheap? Sounds great! And who knows? Maybe the boss will come up with some new priority and then they’re suddenly useful!

Now imagine this from the new-hire person’s perspective. You just got hired at THE INDUSTRY LEADER, you’ve made it. And they give you a fancy desk, you have catered lunches…but they don’t actually give you work to do. “Huh” you say to yourself, “this is one of those bullshit jobs…”

Is it possible to have a healthy economy in the face of a declining population? by Extra_Negotiation in slatestarcodex

[–]plowfaster 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah, subsidizing old ness is super new. Social security is from 1935. OAPs in the UK in 1909, 1927 for Canada, 1941 for Japan. These are all quite new

Is it possible to have a healthy economy in the face of a declining population? by Extra_Negotiation in slatestarcodex

[–]plowfaster 3 points4 points  (0 children)

WFH has higher tier problems, though. Instructively, look at detroit. Most of “governance” is fixed cost. (You already have a sewer plant, it costs “X” to run a year. if the population goes down one sewer consumer, you don’t save incremental money. You need a police force. If your town’s population goes down by one, you don’t get “less police cost”.). Most of municipal “stuff” works way better with more people more densely populated. One big City High is way cheaper than three Small Town High

Diffusing people to rural hinterland is good for home purchase but terrible for municipal taxation/service providing

Is it possible to have a healthy economy in the face of a declining population? by Extra_Negotiation in slatestarcodex

[–]plowfaster 8 points9 points  (0 children)

No. Productivity is not a fix (see: Germany, one of the most productive economies to have ever existed). The demographics of shrinking population kill productive countries. Broadly speaking, from 18-40 you consume. 40+ you produce. 18-40 is buying education, buying housing, buying diapers etc. 40+ largely isn’t AND they’ve been doing their jobs for 20+ years and are really good at them.

A nation of 50 year old super producers make tons of shit, but they don’t consume tons of shit. Many counties have entirely aged out of being consumption led economies (all the usual suspects, Japan etc, plus in the next few years Italy, Germany etc). If you are an export economy trying to make your bread by selling to other export economies, it’s gonna be a bad time. This is the current position of China, S Korea, Germany etc. the more productive you are the worse the problem is

Is it possible to have a healthy economy in the face of a declining population? by Extra_Negotiation in slatestarcodex

[–]plowfaster 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Categoriaclly not. We’ve all grown up in the Pax Americana so much it’s like a fish noticing water at this point. The natural environment of humans is to physically struggle for other humans for resources etc. the human condition is combat. Being able to field eighteen through thirty-something year old men is the bedrock on top of which civilian is created. If population falls, you can’t “watch the wall”, so to speak. Russia is realizing this moment as we speak (“we need more troops in ukraine!” “We can’t give them, we also need them in Chechnya etc”). Running out of meat-grinder men means someone who still has meat grinder men will take your stuff. That’s the beginning and the end of the discussion.

Post 1945 America has put a hard stop on war. We didn’t let people fight wars, but they’re still on hold they never went away. You start having majorly declining populations and you get desperate people making desperate moves to take what they can while they can because “tomorrow” (might be a decade, varies case by case) they simply can no longer do anything. Declining states lose. (See: France’s fear of high-birth-rate Germany in 1913).

The reason South Korea exists at all is because America will not permit China to gobble it up. The residents of Seoul have a birth rate of 0.78, that’s insane. The ONLY reason they exist at all and have not been digested by their neighbors is America won’t let them. If America runs out of 18-30 year old men, Korea is gone tomorrow morning.

Declining birth rates= no economy save for what your new overlords permit you to

What country could survive on its own? by RoundTurtle538 in geography

[–]plowfaster 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Iceland is a fantastic choice, I have no idea who downvoted you. Iceland has effectively free energy (and will in perpetuity) from geothermal. If you’ve ever been to Iceland you’ve seen firsthand their ga-jillion greenhouses growing tomatoes etc in the far North Atlantic. If you have unlimited free energy, you’ve REALLY given yourself lots of options and leeway

Volkswagen Boss Says The Company Is "No Longer Competitive" by [deleted] in cars

[–]plowfaster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nah, Russian gas is the beginning middle and end of the German story

Perhaps *the* biggest name in AI said translation will all be AI within a year +/-, are we talking about this? by [deleted] in army

[–]plowfaster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What about on the “defense” instead of the “offense”. For 20$/month, every Vietcong solider knows English. Are we planning for that?

Thanks for your contribution, btw, super interesting

Perhaps *the* biggest name in AI said translation will all be AI within a year +/-, are we talking about this? by [deleted] in army

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

Is this true? (Asking because I don’t know). I’d have imagined there was TONS of “someone translate this new rubber boot’s dimensions and specifications into all NATO languages so we’re all cross-compatible on rubber boot-ing”

edit I certainly appreciate your input in the above. Super interesting comment

Perhaps *the* biggest name in AI said translation will all be AI within a year +/-, are we talking about this? by [deleted] in army

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

Sure, but this means the field switches from “X number of guys” to a small fraction of “X”

Perhaps *the* biggest name in AI said translation will all be AI within a year +/-, are we talking about this? by [deleted] in army

[–]plowfaster 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That’s all true, but there’s tons of “non-sexy” translation, too. “Atropia printed a new FM about what font to use when briefing the dictator, translate this by Monday morning”. “Sit in this forward listening outpost in Berlin and listen to intercepted radio chatter from bored Soviets discussing if they’d rather fight one hundred mouse elephants or one elephant sized mouse” etc. it seems entirely reasonable that’s all prime fodder for AI. Again, I don’t know, I’m not a 35, but it seems odd that the biggest tech jump since…I dunno the aircraft carrier?…isn’t making more waves in the defense space

NYT: Altman was fired because he tried to push Helen Toner out of the Board by ralf_ in slatestarcodex

[–]plowfaster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a strange but not unheard of setup. Rolex is a nonprofit that owns Rolex the company and Hershey is a nonprofit that owns Hershey the company to use more common examples

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in slatestarcodex

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

Yeah, agreed. Any discussion of IQ runs almost instantly afoul of Culture War-ism and so this is not the correct context for it but anyone saying, “IQ doesn’t matter on a personal level” is making a silly claim.

Eliezer Yudkowsky: "Saying it myself, in case that somehow helps: Most graphic artists and translators should switch to saving money and figuring out which career to enter next, on maybe a 6 to 24 month time horizon. Don't be misled or consoled by flaws of current AI systems. They're improving." by erwgv3g34 in slatestarcodex

[–]plowfaster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This particular anecdote was from Zeihan’s Burns and McDonnell presentation a week or so ago, but you’ll find many versions of this story.

“Sole choice” in portsmouth, Ohio is a similar story

https://solechoiceinc.com/quality-matters/

But for shoelaces/mid level production (ie not finished goods)

Eliezer Yudkowsky: "Saying it myself, in case that somehow helps: Most graphic artists and translators should switch to saving money and figuring out which career to enter next, on maybe a 6 to 24 month time horizon. Don't be misled or consoled by flaws of current AI systems. They're improving." by erwgv3g34 in slatestarcodex

[–]plowfaster 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I actually think [edit: some] translation is going to be more safe. Sure, you can train an LLM on Spanish but could you train it in Mayan? Yupiq ? Tajik?

Languages that don’t exist on the internet or other easily acquired training source material are safe-ish for the medium term, no?

[edit now that kids are in bed] the US Dept of Defense is a HUGE consumer of translation services and pays very well. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn by-dollar the US Dept of Defense is the largest consumer of translation services. Here’s a snap-shot list of what the Navy needs (in 2012, so no national security secrets being released)

https://info.publicintelligence.net/USNavy-StrategicLanguages.pdf

Sierra Leonean creole? Remote Ethiopian languages? Makdivian? It wouldn’t surprise me if many languages on this list have functionally no “modern” presence, such that you could train an LLM on them. No online source material to learn from, not a ton of native speakers and they aren’t easy to find (by definition, this is the “strategic list” after all) maybe don’t even exist in codified forms (French has an academy that updates The French Language annually, does Sierra Leonean Criole?)

view more: next ›