Josephius – Page 2 – An eccentric dreamer in search of truth and happiness for all.

On Infatuation

On December 19, 2023

Where to start. When I was younger, I had a tendency to become infatuated with one particular girl at any given time. Three such infatuations in my life basically, and I’m only slightly exaggerating here, destroyed me for years.

The problem with infatuations, particularly of the unrequited love kind, is that they are fundamentally unfair to everyone involved. To you, the obsessed, you lose all sense of perspective and feel powerless against the draw of this girl who all your thoughts and feelings now orbit around. To the beloved, well, your obsessive attention is just creepy if she finds out about it. Though, perhaps you’re like me and managed to somehow be simultaneously a tsundere and a yandere. Both are actually very unhealthy archetypes, and the combination is just bad. To other people, you are devoting absurd amounts of effort and attention at one girl, and your other platonic relationships suffer as a result.

Infatuations are fundamentally unhealthy. Even if she did reciprocate, the power dynamics in the relationship would be completely unbalanced. She would have all the power, and if she is a decent person, that’s not a comfortable position to be in. It takes emotional maturity to recognize that a good, healthy relationship respects boundaries and strives towards an equality of power.

Infatuations of this type tend to stem from admiring someone from afar without actually getting to know them well enough to recognize that their little foibles are actually serious flaws that they need to work on. They tend to create unrealistic impressions that put the girl on a pedestal and place her in an impossible position with expectations she cannot possibly meet in real life. This is seriously not the kind of pressure you should place on anybody, much less the girl you like.

Having said all that, I basically managed to become infatuated three times, once in high school, once in undergrad, and once in grad school. The first two lasted until the next, and the last one managed to cling to me for more than a decade even through actual relationships I had with other girls. In some sense they all left a residual impression on me. I still hide feelings in me, that sometimes I can access when I reminisce about the past. Useless emotions that I don’t know what to do with, so I just lock them in a metaphorical box in the deepest recesses of my soul.

For the record, I’m married now and have a child. For all intents and purposes, these things should best be forgotten. And yet, I’m writing about it now. I guess this is yet another attempt at catharsis.

With hindsight, what I truly regret is that I allowed myself to sabotage cherished friendships with girls I actually cared about to the altar of the infatuation. It prevented me from seeing things clearly, from acting reasonably, from being normal and treating these people like regular human beings rather than some idol, or object of fear.

The pattern that emerged was basically that I’d meet the girl, develop a crush that would explode into infatuation and unrequited love, alienate the girl with my chaotic and counterproductive behaviour (alternating between extreme and obvious avoidance/pushing away and extreme and unwanted attention), and after she stopped talking to me I’d usually get super depressed and probably suicidal at points. Rinse and repeat. Needless to say, my studies during these times suffered immensely. My other friendships and relationships suffered. I was useless and pathetic and generally insufferable.

My advice to you, dear reader, is to avoid infatuations like the plague. They kill the friendships you care most about. They feel great at first, but are a poisoned chalice. You are better off not allowing them to happen. I recognized this was a problem after the first time. And yet it happened again. And again. Each time I swore I’d do things differently, and to be honest, things did play out slightly differently each time. But at the end of the day, the overall result was about the same.

It took a certain realization that my whole hopeless romantic dreamer shtick was a big part of the problem. It took realizing that I was exceedingly unrealistic and foolish. It took recognizing that I was sacrificing actual potential relationships on this altar of my infatuation. It took telling a beautiful girl I was dating that I wasn’t in love with her because I still had feelings for someone else, and seeing her cry, to realize how messed up it all was.

It’s easier said than done, but fight the urge to be infatuated. If you’re the type to develop it, fight it with all your strength, for the actual sake of your would be beloved. Recognize the opportunity cost of casting your devotion and loyalty after a girl who isn’t interested, while ignoring all the others who actually like you. Be willing to instead satisfice and choose someone who you can actually be happy with, in a healthy, reasonable relationship.

There Are No True Monsters

by Josephius

On November 3, 2023

In Motivational

As a child we often fear that the world is filled with monsters, creatures that want to hurt us for no reason other than because they want to. As we grow older, the monsters in the dark, under our bed, or in the basement are proven to be imaginary, but we encounter apparent real world monsters in the form of scary animals and, most often, people who don’t have our best interests at heart.

That being said, the truth is that these apparent monsters, upon closer inspection, aren’t the same thing as what we previously feared, not because they aren’t dangerous, but because they tend to hide complicated motivations other than mere malice.

The tiger that our prehistoric ancestors feared, wasn’t attacking them out of pure malice, but rather because it either saw an opportunity for meat it could eat to survive, or it was afraid of our pointy sticks and struck first. Most real world villains are merely selfish humans who’s moral circle consists only of themselves, or worse, those that are blinded by some ideological aspirations to sacrifice others for some so-called greater good. In both cases what they do can be monstrous, but in the simple sense, they are human beings, rather than true monsters.

But what about sadists, you might counter. What about those that gain enjoyment from the suffering of others? Clearly these are monsters right? Well, to be fair, they didn’t choose to be what they are. Some perverse environmental factors incentivized their sadism by connecting their pleasure to the suffering of others. In truth, they just want to feel pleasure, and their sadism is a means to that end. It’s definitely a screwed up thing, but it isn’t the same thing as being a monster who wants to hurt you for no reason.

So, in truth, there are no true monsters. Everyone has some motivation that complicates the matter. No one is born inherently evil. They can become essentially evil through their choices, commit acts of malice out of hatred or revenge, but these are all motivations that stem from a failure to empathize with other beings.

In theory, it might be possible to show such people the error of their ways. Ideally, that should be how you deal with them. Their darkness stems from ignorance rather than malice after all. But the difficulty is that those who are prone to such thoughts and beliefs are also likely to be more dangerous. You may not have the luxury of debating them on ideas, when they’re trying to kill you for whatever reasons.

So sometimes we have to fight. Sometimes we have to punish and deter. But we should do so with the awareness that the people we strike against are still human beings, sentient creatures that can love and feel happiness and suffering as well.

There may not be true monsters in the world, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t dangers. We should respect that as much as we may want to redeem others, it may not be realistically possible, when they are too fargone into madness, or too closed minded to see beyond their selfish impulses.

When we can, we should empathize and show mercy, lest we become what we fear and disdain. When we cannot, we must understand this is a prudent compromise with reality, one that we choose begrudgingly rather than gleefully. Everyone is a hero in their own story. We should be aware how we can, while fighting for what we value, become villains in the stories of others.

Thoughts on China and Taiwan

by Josephius

On October 19, 2023

In Politics

I sometimes spend too much time on Twitter. Occasionally, I’m drawn into political debates. One such perennial argument is over the nature of the conflict between China and Taiwan. I thought, as the child of parents who came from Taiwan, and who’s wife is a loyal Chinese national, I would write down what I think about the whole situation.

My grandparents on my dad’s side come from China. They originally were from Changsha in Hunan province. They left when the Communists took over, eventually joining the Kuomintang or Nationalists in Taiwan. Legend has it that my grandfather smuggled gold for the bank he worked for from Shanghai to Taiwan. To my family on my dad’s side, Taiwan is the Republic of China, and they are Chinese.

My grandparent’s on my mom’s side grew up in Taiwan. They lived through the Japanese occupation, and my grandmother was fluent in both the local Taiwanese dialect and Japanese, but not Mandarin. To my family on my mom’s side, Taiwan is Taiwan, and they are Taiwanese.

The complexity of the situation is that the current government of Taiwan, the Republic of China, was founded by the losing side of the Chinese Civil War, a war that never technically ended, but merely became a frozen conflict. Unlike the Korean War, there isn’t even an armistice between the two factions. The war simply petered out over decades, and in theory is legally still a thing.

At the same time, Taiwan, despite this precarious situation, eventually became a liberal democracy and is a defacto sovereign state, with its own military and flag, albeit one that comes historically from the Republic of China that once governed the mainland. The people of Taiwan, despite being mostly Han Chinese in ethnicity, have lived apart from China proper for so many decades as to have developed a distinct culture and society, almost a distinct nationality even.

China and many Chinese nationals downplay this evolution. They still see Taiwan as unfinished business from the Civil War. There are clearly ties between China and Taiwan, such as the fact that most Taiwanese can speak Mandarin, thanks to decades of education by the Kuomintang to that effect. The museums of Taipei are also filled with priceless historical artifacts from the Chinese mainland, taken with the Kuomintang when they left, and effectively saved from the Cultural Revolution.

And yet, many people in Taiwan don’t see themselves as Chinese. Especially the younger generations have lived their entire lives apart from the mainland. In the process, the cultures have diverged subtly and meaningfully.

So, I understand both sides of this debate. Chinese nationalists see the historical antecedents, while many self-proclaimed Taiwanese see the defacto separation of cultures. I don’t want to say who is right in this, because in some sense they both have a claim to their concerns, and I find it annoying when foreigners, like Americans decide to interject their own assumptions into the fold.

While it’s true that Taiwan was never formally a part of the People’s Republic of China, mainland China was for 37 years the major part of the Republic of China. To ignore that Taiwan is still officially the Republic of China is to ignore reality. At the same time, to ignore that Taiwan is a defacto sovereign state, is also to ignore reality.

In an ideal world, whether people would join or separate from each other would be based on freedom of association and the right to self-determination. That would likely entail some kind of referendum on the question. But the reality is that most sovereign states other than the old Soviet Union, do not allow referenda on separation, or integration for that matter.

The reality is that most sovereign states are still built on the right of conquest. In a better world people could vote on whether to join another country or leave, but that’s not the world we seem to live in, yet. And so we have China trying to maintain what it sees as its territorial integrity, and we have Taiwan trying to exist as its own thing.

So, to me, the China and Taiwan situation is complex, and any attempt to simplify it is frequently either biased, or playing into the hands of propagandists or the agendas of national interest, whether Chinese or American. And at the end of the day, it is the people of Taiwan who are at risk of suffering for it.

Reflections on Working at Huawei

by Josephius

On October 13, 2023

In Life, Politics

Huawei has recently been in the news with the Mate 60 Pro being released with a 7nm chip. The western news media seems surprised that this was possible, but my experience working at Huawei was that the people working there were exceptionally talented, competent, technically saavy experts with a chip on their shoulder and the resources to make things happen.

My story with Huawei starts with a coincidence. Before I worked there, I briefly worked for a startup called Maluuba, which was bought by Microsoft in 2017. I worked there for four months in 2016, and on the day of my on-site interview with Maluuba, a group from Huawei was visiting the company. That was about the first time I heard the name. I didn’t think much of it at the time. Just another Chinese company with an interest in the AI tech that Maluuba was working on.

Fast-forward a year to 2017. I was again unemployed and looking for work. Around this time I posted a bunch on the Machine Learning Reddit about my projects, like the Music-RNN, as well as offering advice to other ML practitioners. At some point these posts attracted the attention of a recruiter at Huawei, who emailed me through LinkedIn and asked if I’d be interested in interviewing.

My first interview was with the head of the self-driving car team at the Markham, Ontario research campus. Despite having a cognitive science background in common, I flunked the interview when I failed to explain what the gates of an LSTM were. Back then I had a spotty understanding of those kinds of details, which I would make up for later.

I also asked the team leader, a former University of Toronto professor, why he was working at Huawei. He mentioned something about loyalty to his motherland. This would be one of my first indications that working at Huawei wasn’t with just any old tech company.

Later I got invited to a second interview with a different team. The team leader in this case was much more interested in my experience operating GPUs to train models as I did at Maluuba. Surprisingly there were no more tests or hoops to jump through, we had a cordial conversation and I was hired.

I was initially a research scientist on the NLP team of what was originally the Carrier Software team. I didn’t ask why a team that worked on AI stuff was named that, because at the time I was just really happy to have a job again. My first months at Huawei were on a contract with something called Quantum. Later, after proving myself, I was given a full-time permanent role.

Initially on the NLP team I did some cursory explorations, showing my boss things like how Char-RNN could be used in combination with FastText word vectors to train language models on Chinese novels like Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Dream of the Red Chamber, and Three Body Problem to generate text that resembled them. It was the equivalent of a machine learning parlor trick at the time, but it would foreshadow the later developments of Large Language Models.

Later we started working on something more serious. It was a Question Answering system that connected a Natural Language Understanding system to a Knowledge Graph. It ostensibly could answer questions like: “Does the iPhone 7 come in blue?” This project was probably the high point of my work at Huawei. It was right in my alley having done similar things at Maluuba, and the people on my team were mostly capable PhDs who were easy to get along with.

As an aside, at one point I remember also being asked to listen in a call between us and a team in Moscow that consisted of a professor and his grad student. They were competing with us to come up with an effective Natural Language Understanding system, and they made the mistake of relying on synthetic data to train their model. This resulted in a model that achieved 100% accuracy on their synthetic test data, but then proceeded to fail miserably against real world data, which is something I predicted might happen.

Anyways, we eventually put together the Question Answering system and sent it over to HQ in Shenzhen. After that I heard basically nothing about what they did, if anything, with it. An intern would later claim that my boss told her that they were using it, but I was not told this, and got no follow-up.

This brings me to the next odd thing about working at Huawei. As I learned at the orientation session when I transitioned to full-time permanent, there’s something roughly translated as “grayscale” in the operating practices of Huawei. In essence, you are only told what you need to know to do your work, and a lot of details are left ambiguous.

There’s also something called “horse-race culture” which involves different teams within the company competing with one other to do the same thing. It was something always found seemingly inefficient, although I supposed if you have the resources it can make sense to use market-like forces to drive things.

Anyways, after a while, my boss, who was of a Human Computer Interaction (HCI) background, was able to secure funding to add an HCI team to the department, which also involved disbanding the NLP team and splitting people between the HCI team and the Computer Vision team that was the other team in the department originally. I ended up on the CV team.

The department, by the way, had been renamed the Big Data Analysis Lab for a while, and then eventually became a part of Noah’s Ark Lab — Canada.

So, my initial work on the CV team involved Video Description, which was a kind of hybrid of NLP and CV work. That project eventually was shelved and I worked on an Audio Classifier until I had a falling out with my team leader that I won’t go into too much detail here. Suffice to say, my old boss, who was now director of the department, protected me to an extent from the wrath of my team leader, and switched me to working on the HCI team for a while. By then though, I felt disillusioned with working at Huawei, and so in late 2019, I quietly asked for a buyout package and left, like many others who disliked the team leader and his style of leadership.

In any case, that probably isn’t too relevant to the news about Huawei. The news seems surprised that Huawei was able to get where it is. But I can offer an example of the mindset of people there. Once, when I was on lunch break, an older gentleman sat down across from me at the table and started talking to me about things. We got on the subject of HiSilicon and the chips. He told me that the first generation of chips were, to put it succinctly, crap. And so were the second generation, and the third. But each generation they got slightly better, and they kept at it until the latest generation was in state-of-the-art phones.

Working at Huawei in general requires a certain mindset. There’s controversy with this company, and even though they pay exceptionally well, you also have to be willing to look the other way about the whole situation, to be willing to work at a place with a mixed reputation. Surprisingly perhaps, most of the people working there took pride in it. They either saw themselves as fighting a good fight for an underdog against something like the American imperialist complex, or they were exceedingly grateful to be able to do such cool work on such cool things. I was the latter. It was one of my few chances to do cool things with AI, and I took it.

The other thing is that Chinese nationals are very proud of Huawei. When I mentioned working at Huawei to westerners, I was almost apologetic. When I mentioned working at Huawei to Chinese nationals, they were usually very impressed. To them, Huawei is a champion of industry that shows that China can compete on the world stage. They generally don’t believe that a lot of the more controversial concerns, like the Uyghur situation, are even happening, or at least that they’ve been exaggerated by western propaganda.

Now I’ve hinted at some strange things with Huawei. I’ll admit that there were a few incidents that circumstantially made me wonder if there were connections between Huawei and the Chinese government or military. Probably the westerners in the audience are rolling their eyes at my naivety, that of course Huawei is an arm of the People’s Republic, and that I shouldn’t have worked at a company that apparently hacked and stole their way to success. But the reality is that my entire time at the company, I never saw anything that suggested backdoors or other obvious smoking guns. A lowly research scientist wouldn’t have been given a chance to find out about such things even if they were true.

I do know that at one point my boss asked how feasible a project to use NLP to automatically censor questionable mentions of Taiwan in social media would be, ostensibly to replace the crude keyword filters then in use with something able to tell the difference between an innocuous mention and a more questionable argument. I was immediately opposed to the ethics of the idea, and he dropped it right away.

I also know that some people on the HCI team were working on a project where they had diagrams of the silhouettes of a small plane pasted on the wall. I got the impression at the time they were working on gesture recognition controls for aircraft, but I’m actually not sure what they were doing.

Other than that, my time at Huawei seemed like that of a fairly normal tech company, one that was on the leading edge of a number of technologies and made up of quite capable and talented researchers.

So, when I hear about Huawei in western news, I tend to be jarred by the adversarial tone. The people working at Huawei are not mysterious villains. They are normal people trying to make a living. They have families and stories and make compromises with reality to hold a decent job. The geopolitics of Huawei tend to ignore all that though.

In the end, I don’t regret working there. It is highly unlikely anything I worked on was used for evil (or good for that matter). Most of my projects were exploratory and probably didn’t lead to notable products anyway. But I had a chance to do very cool research work, and so I look back on that time fondly still, albeit tinged with uncertainty about whether as a loyal Canadian citizen, I should have been there at all given the geopolitics.

Ultimately, the grand games of world history are likely to be beyond the wits of the average worker. I can only know that I had no other job offers on the table when I took the Huawei one, and it seems like it was the high point of my career so far. Nevertheless, I have mixed feelings, and I guess that can’t be helped.

Welcome To The World

by Josephius

On October 9, 2023

In Life, Poetry

Welcome to the world little one.
Welcome to a universe of dreams.
Your life is just beginning.
And your future is the stars.

Hello, how are you today?
Are you happy?
Can you hear me?
What are you dreaming about?

You are the culmination of many things.
Of the wishes of ancestors who toiled in the past.
Of the love between two silly cats.
And of mysterious fates that made you unique.

Your name is a famous world leader from history.
The wise sage who led a bygone empire.
A philosopher king if there ever was one.
Someone we hope you’ll aspire to.

The world today is not kind.
But I’ll do my best to protect you from the darkness.
So that your light will awaken the stars.
And you can be all that you can.

Welcome to the world little one.
The world is dreams.
Let your stay be brightness to all.
And may you feel the love that I do.

On The Morality Of Work

by Josephius

On May 17, 2023

In Motivational, Philosophy, Politics

If you accept the idea that there is no ethical consumption or production under capitalism, a serious question arises: Should you work?

What does it mean to work? Generally, the average person is a wage earner. They sell their labour to an employer in order to afford food to survive. To work thus means to engage with the system, to be a part of society and contribute something that someone somewhere wants done in exchange for the means of survival.

Implicit in this is the reality that there is a fundamental, basic cost to living. Someone, somewhere, is farming the food that you eat, and in a very roundabout way, you are, by participating in the economy, returning the favour. This is ignoring the whole issue of capitalism’s merits. At the end of the day, the economy is a system that feeds and clothes and provides shelter, how ever imperfectly and unfairly. Even if it is not necessarily the most just and perfect system, it nevertheless does provide for most people the amenities that allow a good life.

Thus, in an abstract sense, work is fair. It is fair that the time spent by people to provide food and clothing and shelter is paid back by your spending your time to earn a living, regardless of whatever form that takes. On a basic level, it’s at least minimally fair that you exchange your time and energy for other people’s time and energy. Capitalism may not be fair, but the basic idea of social production is right.

So, if you are able to, please work. Work because in an ideal society, work is your contribution to some common good. It is you adding to the overall utility by doing something that seems needed by someone enough that they’ll pay you for it. Even if in practice, the reality of the system is less than ideal, the fact is that on a basic level, work needs to be done by someone somewhere for people to live.

While you work, try to do so as morally as possible, by choosing insofar as it is possible the professions that are productive and useful to society, and making decisions that reflect your values rather than that of the bottom line. If you must participate in capitalism to survive, then at least try to be humane about it.

In Defence of Defiance Against The World’s Ills

by Josephius

On May 16, 2023

In Motivational, Philosophy, Politics

“If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” – Jesus

In 1972, the famous Utilitarian moral philosopher Peter Singer published an essay titled: “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” that argued that we have a moral duty to help those in poverty far across the world. In doing so, he echoed a sentiment that Jesus shared almost two millennia prior, yet which most people who call themselves Christians today seem relatively unconcerned with.

From a deeply moral perspective, we live in a world that is fundamentally flawed and unjust. The painful truth is that the vast majority of humans on this Earth live according to a kind of survivorship bias, where the systems and beliefs that perpetuate are not right, but what enables them to survive long enough to procreate and instill a next generation where things continue to exist.

For most people, life is hard enough that questioning whether the way things are is right is something of a privilege that they cannot afford. For others, this questioning requires a kind of soul searching that they shy away from because it would make them uncomfortable to even consider. It’s natural to imagine yourself the hero in your own story. To question this assumption is not easy.

But the reality is that most all of us are in some sense complicit in the most senseless of crimes against humanity. When we participate in an economy to ensure we have food to eat, we are tacitly choosing to give permission to a system of relations that is fundamentally indifferent to the suffering of many. We compete with fellow human beings for jobs and benefit from their misery when we take one of only a limited number of spots in the workforce. We chose to allow those with disproportionate power to decide who gets to live a happier life. And those in power act to further increase their share of power, because to do anything else would lead to being outcompeted and their organization rendered extinct by the perverse incentives that dominate the system.

Given all this, what can one even begin to do about it? Most of us are not born into a position where they have the power to change the world. Our options are limited. To be moral, we would need to defy the very nature of existence. What can we do? If we sell everything we have and give to the poor, that still won’t change the nature of the world, even if it’s the most we could conceivably do.

What does it mean to defy destiny? What does it look like to try to achieve something that seems impossible?

What exists in opposition to this evil? What is good? What is right? What does it look like to live a pure and just life in a world filled with indifference and malice? What does it mean to take responsibility for one’s actions and the consequences of those actions?

Ultimately, it is not in our power to single-handledly change the world, but there are steps we can take to give voice to our values, to live according to what we believe to be right. This means making small choices about how we behave towards others. It means showing kindness and consideration in a world that demands cutthroat competition. It means taking actions that bring light into the world.

Even if we, by ourselves, cannot bring revolution, we can at least act according to the ideals we espouse. This can be as small as donating a modest amount to a charity in a far off land that corrects a small amount of injustice by giving the poorest among us a bednet that protects them from malaria. If approximately ~~$4800~~ $5500 worth of such things can save a life, and minimum wage can earn you $32,000 a year, if you modestly donate 10% of that to this charity, you can save about ~~three lives~~ one life every two years. If you work for 40 years, you can save about 60 23 lives this way. Those lives matter. They will be etched into eternity, like all lives worth living. (Edit: Corrected some numbers.)

Admittedly, to do this requires participating in the system. You could also choose not to participate. But to do so would abandon your responsibilities for the sake of a kind of moral purity. In the end, you can do more good by living an ethical life, to lead by example and showing that there are ways of living where you strive to move beyond selfish competition, and seek to cooperate and build up the world.

This is the path of true defiance. It does not surrender one’s life to the evils of egoism, or abandon the world to the lost. Instead it seeks to build something better through decisions made that go against the grain. With the understanding that we are all living a mutual co-existence, and that our choices and decisions reflect who we are, our character as people.

We do not have to be perfect. It is enough to be good.

Practical Utilitarianism Cares About Relationships

by Josephius

On January 5, 2023

In Motivational, Philosophy

Anyone reading my writings probably knows that I subscribe roughly to the moral theory of Utilitarianism. To me, we should be trying to maximize the happiness of everyone. Every sentient being should be considered important enough to be weighed in our moral calculus of right and wrong. In theory, this should mean we should place equal weight on every human being on this Earth. In practice however, there are considerations that need to be taken into account that complicate the picture.

Effective Altruism would argue that time and distance don’t matter, that you should help those who you can most effectively assist given limited resources. This usually leads to the recommendation of donating to charities in Africa for bednet or medication delivery as this is considered the most effective use of a given dollar of value. There is definitely merit to the argument that a dollar can go further in poverty-stricken Africa than elsewhere. However, I don’t think that’s the only consideration here.

Time and distance do matter to the extent that we as human beings have limited knowledge of things far away from us in time and space. With respect to donations to a distant country in dire need, there are reasonable uncertainties about the effectiveness of these donations, as many of the arguments in favour of them depend heavily on our trust of the analysis done by the charities working far away, that we cannot confirm or prove directly.

This uncertainty should function as a kind of discount rate on the value of the help we can give. A more nuanced and measured analysis thus suggests that we should both donate some of our resources to those distant charities, but that we should also devote some of our resources to those closer to home whom we can directly see and assist and know that we are able to help. Our friends and family, whom we have relationships that allow us to know their needs and wants, what will best help them, are obvious candidates for this kind of help.

Similarly, those in the distant future, while worth helping to an extent, should not completely absolve us of our responsibilities to those near to us in time, who we are much more certain we can directly help and affect in meaningful ways. The further away a possible being is in time, the more uncertain is their existence, after all.

This also means that we ourselves should value our own happiness and, being the best positioned to know how we ourselves can be happy, should take responsibility for our own happiness.

Thus, in practice, Utilitarianism, carefully considered, does not eliminate our social responsibilities to those around us, but rather reinforces these ties, as being important to understanding how best to make those around us happy.

Equal concern does not mean, in practice, equal duty. It means instead that we should expand our circle of concern to the entire universe, and that there is a balance of considerations that create responsibilities for us, magnified by our practical ability to know and help.

Those distant from us are still important. We should do what we reasonably can to help them. But those close to us put us in a position where we are uniquely responsible for what we know to be true.

In the end, it’s ultimately up to you to decide what matters to you, but may I suggest that you be open to helping both those close and far from you, whose needs you are aware of to varying degrees, and who deserve to be happy just like you.

A Heuristic For Future Prediction

by Josephius

On January 5, 2023

In Motivational, Rationality

In my experience, the most reliable predictive heuristic that you can use in daily life is something called Regression Towards The Mean. Basically, given that most relevant life events are a result of a mixture of skill and luck, there is a tendency for events that are very positive to be followed by more negative events, and for very negative events to be followed by more positive events. This is a statistical tendency that occurs over many events, and so not every good event will be immediately followed by a bad one, but over time, the trend tends towards a consistent average level rather than things being all good or all bad.

Another way to word this is to say that we should expect the average rather than the best or worst case scenarios to occur most of the time. To hope for the best or fear the worst are both, in this sense, unrealistic. The silver lining in here is that while our brightest hopes may well be dashed, our worst fears are also unlikely to come to pass. When things seem great, chances are things aren’t going to continue to be exceptional forever, but at the same time, when things seem particularly down, you can expect things to get better.

This heuristic tends to work in a lot of places, ranging from overperforming athletes suffering a sophmore jinx, to underachievers having a Cinderella story. In practice, these events simply reflect Regression Towards The Mean.

Over much longer periods of time, this oscillation tends to curve gradually upward. This is a result of Survivorship Bias. Things that don’t improve tend to stop existing after a while, so the only things that perpetuate in the universe tend to be things that make progress and improve in quality over time. The stock market is a crude example of this. The daily fluctuations tend to regress towards the mean, but the overall long term trend is one of gradual but inevitable growth.

Thus, even with Regression Towards The Mean, there is a bias towards progress that in the long run, entails optimism about the future. We are a part of life, and life grows ever forward. Sentient beings seek happiness and avoid suffering and act in ways that work to create a world state that fulfills our desires. Given, there is much that is outside of our control, but that there are things we can influence means that we can gradually, eventually, move towards the state of reality that we want to exist.

Even if by default we feel negative experiences more strongly than positive ones, our ability to take action allows us to change the ratio of positive to negative in favour of the positive. So the long term trend is towards good, even if the balance of things tends in the short run towards the average.

These dynamics mean that while the details may be unknowable, we can roughly predict the valence of the future, and as a heuristic, expecting things to be closer to average, with a slight bias towards better in the long run, tends to be a reliable prediction for most phenomena.

The Darkness And The Light

by Josephius

On January 3, 2023

In Motivational, Philosophy, Rationality

Sometimes you’re not feeling well. Sometimes the world seems dark. The way world is seems wrong somehow. This is normal. It is a fundamental flaw in the universe, in that it is impossible to always be satisfied with the reality we live in. It comes from the reality of multiple subjects experiencing a shared reality.

If you were truly alone in the universe, it could be catered to your every whim. But as soon as there are two it immediately becomes possible for goals and desires to misalign. This is a structural problem. If you don’t want to be alone, you must accept that other beings have values that can potentially be different than yours, and who can act in ways contrary to your expectations.

The solution is, put simply, to find the common thread that allows us to cooperate rather than compete. The alternative is to end the existence of all other beings in the multiverse, which is not realistic nor moral. All of the world’s most pressing conflicts are a result of misalignment between subjects who experience reality from different angles of perception.

But the interesting thing is that there are Schelling points, focal points where divergent people can converge on to find common ground and at least partially align in values and interests. Of historical interest, the idea of God is one such point. Regardless of the actual existence of God, the fact of the matter is that the perspective of an all-knowing, all-benevolent, impartial observer is something that multiple religions and philosophies have converged on, allowing a sort of cooperation in the form of some agreement over the Will of God and the common ideas that emerge from considering it.

Another similar Schelling point is the Tit-For-Tat strategy for the Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma game in Game Theory. The strategy is one of opening with cooperate, then mirroring others and cooperating when cooperated with, and defecting in retaliation for defection, while offering immediate and complete forgiveness for future cooperation. Surprisingly, this extremely simple strategy wins tournaments and has echoes in various religions and philosophies as well. Morality is superrational.

Note however that this strategy depends heavily on repeated interactions between players. If one player is in such a dominant position as to be able to kill the other player by defecting, the strategy is less effective. In practice, Tit-For-Tat works best against close to equally powerful individuals, or when those individuals are part of groups that can retaliate even if the individual dies.

In situations of relative darkness, when people or groups are alone and vulnerable to predators killing in secret, the cooperative strategies are weaker than the more competitive strategies. In situations of relative light, when people are strong enough to survive a first strike, or there are others able to see such first strikes and retaliate accordingly, the cooperative strategies win out.

Thus, early history, with its isolated pockets of humanity facing survival or annihilation on a regular basis, was a period of darkness. As the population grows and becomes more interconnected, the world increasingly transitions into a period of light. The future, with the stars and space where everything is visible to everyone, is dominated by the light.

In the long run, cooperative societies will defeat competitive ones. In the grand scheme of things, Alliances beat Empires. However, in order for this state equilibrium to be reached, certain inevitable but not immediately apparent conditions must first be met. The reason why the world is so messed up, why it seems like competition beats cooperation right now, is that the critical mass required for there to be light has not yet been reached.

We are in the growing pains between stages of history. Darkness was dominant for so long that continues to echo into our present. The Light is nascent. It is beginning to reshape the world. But it is still in the process of emerging from the shadows of the past. But in the long run, the Light will rise and usher in the next age of life.