ControlsFreak
No bio...
User ID: 1422
ControlsFreak
1d ago
I'm not sure whether the roll back was entirely supply-side. Hotels probably thought that consumers wanted hotel staff to stay out of their rooms during COVID. Then, different consumers likely had different preferences over time (some folks wanted to "get back to normal" very quickly, while others stayed in "pandemic mode" longer), they probably pretty rationally came up with the idea of just making room cleanings a bit more optional rather than routine. At some point, the light bulb probably flipped, and they realized they could probably save a fair amount of money by just fiddling with the default.
Even pre-COVID, it was still 'optional'. You could just put up the Do Not Disturb sign if you didn't want it. But the default was every day. More recently, I've seen defaults that are every other day or twice a week or whatever; I don't remember the details of every one. It's always been, "Don't worry, we obviously thoroughly clean for new guests, and also if you ever want a cleaning, just ask," but this allows them to skimp on costs with almost no consumer bad will. Honestly, this is probably part fluke that they just somehow didn't think of it before (or felt like they couldn't get away with deviating from the 'industry standard' until they had COVID push everyone off the equilibrium).
ControlsFreak
1d ago
eventually I will need to leave
You may choose to. They may choose to wait.
The SCIF
...but I kinda doubt they'll wait.
The Government doesn't describe arresting law breaking citizens as "Maximal-Opposition" and my parents very much spanked me as a kid and I doubt they would consider corporal punishment as "Maximal-Opposition" in respect to defiance either.
That's not at all what I've said. I've said that you can very very easily find examples of the government or parents doing things that are non-violent. Nevertheless, if you persist at coming up with ways to be oppositional (example), they either have to escalate or give up on enforcing the rule. If you repeat the steps of being oppositional and escalating enough times, you end up in violence. That doesn't mean the first thing was violent.
When your parent says that you can leave the dinner table, but if you're hungry later, you're just going to get the dinner that you didn't eat, that's not violent. If later comes around, the kid escalates, and the parent moves on to corporal punishment, that doesn't somehow convert the first encounter into being a violent encounter.
ControlsFreak
1d ago
Take your job, if you don't wish to do something you can leave
What if you don't leave? Remember to apply the assumption of maximal-opposition at every stage.
ControlsFreak
1d ago
It's probably unlikely that we'll end up with zero janitors, general construction workers, drywallers, or hotel maids. Prices find equilibria. Both supply and demand matter.
the end result of that is far fewer janitors, not janitors getting a pay raise.
Adding illegal workers shifts the supply curve to the right; removing illegal workers shifts the supply curve to the left (at a first approximation in the linear range). Both elasticities will matter, but the only way that you can shift the supply curve to the left and not have the price rise is if the demand for janitors is almost perfectly elastic. That seems unlikely.
As I mentioned, removing illegal immigrants very likely has both the effects of increasing price and decreasing output. That is, both increasing wages and decreasing jobs. The proportion depends on elasticities as well as factors in the rest of the general equilibrium, as the market adjusts.
Nothing in anything I've said has any claims on which occupations will or will not make "well above average salaries". That will be up to the market to decide. What counts as "completely unaffordable" is also subjective, but could in theory be supported by quantitative estimates. Prices will rise; wages will rise (they are prices, after all); output will fall; jobs will fall. This is all very standard economic theory and not really contestable. Any other statements about magnitudes of effects require quantitative argumentation.
ControlsFreak
1d ago
jobs it is difficult to get an American labor force on
...at what price? If you raise the price, you can likely get American labor force on it. If you don't have to raise the price massively to get American labor force on it (because illegals don't make massively less than citizens doing the same job), then it seems somewhat minor. If you do have to raise the price substantially to get American labor force on it, well then I guess we're back to potentially significant cost increases for various crops/clean hotel rooms/etc.
far more reliable than the non-working class that would theoretically be doing those jobs.
If one raises the price, it is not clear to what extent the people attracted to those jobs will come from the currently-non-working and to what extent it will come from folks working other jobs. You can generally get the reliability you desire by raising the price. Of course, this will compete with other job opportunities, pushing wages up more broadly and likely ending some jobs that are at the low end of value. This could increase costs for other goods/services that don't directly employ illegals now.
The open boarders economists like Bryan Caplan make the argument well that immigration restrictions have effects like ending those low value jobs, reducing overall economic efficiency and total output. I've already observed that, for example, hotels have significantly rolled back on regular room cleanings post-COVID. You could imagine effects that feel kind of like that, possibly still in combination with price increases, as the market adjusts. Some folks think the tradeoffs are worth it (and may point to various different things that are trading off, one prominent example being distributional affects purely in terms of American wages), others disagree, and well, yeah, some are probably ignorant of how they're likely to be connected.
ControlsFreak
2d ago
If you forgo the drivers license, and still drive on the road, the state will fine you. If you refuse to pay the fines, eventually the state will arrest you, if you refuse to come quietly because you don't recognize the authority of the state, the state will inflict violence on you until you comply.
This is a perfect example of precisely what I spoke about here:
There are plenty of government rules, which, on their face, are not enforced through violence and kidnapping. In many of those cases, you have to posit a persistently-oppositional figure and a continued escalatory cycle to get to an eventual end state where the ultimate response to unending opposition is, indeed, violence/kidnapping.
If such a proposition holds, it should hold in other domains as well. Let's consider household/family rules. At different stages for children, some household/family rules are directly enforced via spanking or timeouts or whatever (violence/kidnapping). For others, you can often find a similar escalatory process if you posit a sufficiently oppositional child. Another end state may be 'exile', kicking someone out of your house. Of course, if we assume a maximally-oppositional child, what might it take to actually enforce kicking them out of your house? If they just refuse to go? Violence? Kidnapping? Calling the state... to use violence/kidnapping?
I think this reasoning about maximal-opposition holds for essentially every rule ever, government or not. That is, under the hypothesis of maximal-opposition, essentially every rule ever is either ultimately enforced via violence/kidnapping or... well, at some point, it just goes unenforced, as efforts are dropped in the face of maximal-opposition. Of course, one might think that choosing to present maximal-opposition is, itself, a rule that is chosen by someone.
That is, there doesn't seem to be anything unique to government rules here. Yet, I don't think that most people are willing to apply this same standard to the entire set of rules in the universe.
ControlsFreak
4d ago
When I last looked at it, there was no navigation. They had disabled it as an experimental feature, because apparently it was really bad, and the rumor was that they were going to focus on other features with no estimate for when it might come back. So it's not a system where you can set, "I'd like to go to X," and then sit back and let it take you there.
ControlsFreak
5d ago
We might need to come up with a catchy cartoon name for this strategy, otherwise it will lose the memetic war to bumbling Ralph Wiggums.
ControlsFreak
5d ago
the Christian-Socialist-Democratic-Party/Liberal-Unionist-Secession-Party/Green coalition in [Euro country] is breaking down over the question of whether state pensions should cover ceiling fans.
I would love a full comment explaining this one.
ControlsFreak
5d ago
I don't know what you're talking about. You gave a nice definition and the properties of your definition. I'm not even asking for more at this point. Yes, I did ask you to say at least something about what your words mean, because if you can't manage to explain it at all, it's highly likely that you're confused about your own words. But at this point, I'm just looking at your nice definition/properties and observing that you solved your own problem from before. This is good news! This is wonderful news! Shouldn't you be happy that you had a problem before, and now you've solved it? The "inherent tension" in your philosophical positions has evaporated! That's the whole point of this OP.
ControlsFreak
5d ago
They're very not new to me, but apparently, they're pretty new to you, because you thought that this was a very serious issue for you. But now you've solved your own problem, in like a quarter of a second. Record time in philosophy! Just needed a common sense and consensus definition of evil!
ControlsFreak
5d ago
I need to go hunting on SMBC, because he had to have made a comic about this. If not, he really needs to.
That is, I'm pretty sure you've just solved your problem of evil, in quite the unique way.
It certainly seems logically plausible that whatever god may have created the universe, at the time that he/she/it created the universe, thought, "Hmmmm, I wonder if it would be evil to create a universe where eventually, one day, maybe, depending on how things go, a two year old will get ALL?" Perhaps this deity looked around, took an opinion poll to gauge the vibes, determined from the (presumably otherwise empty) room that it seemed a-ok, and proceeded to create said universe. Guess that just wasn't evil, by a common sense and consensus definition of the term.
ControlsFreak
5d ago
This dovetails a bit with my footnote below about figuring out what "box" a person's world is. CSRs have scripts for the majority of the issues that they see on a regular basis. Task number one is to figure out whether your issue fits within one of their scripted boxes. If so, you're probably in good shape. If not, then individual quality can vary substantially. I've had multiple experiences where, after determining that my situation did not fit their script, it was very apparent that it would be important to get a person whose box extended beyond the scripts and included the knowledge/intelligence sufficient to work the problem. I've had times where, for example, they told me they could solve the problem, but they could not explain how the steps would work well enough that I was comfortable proceeding. A hang-up and a call back later, and I got someone who was very capable of conceptualizing the problem properly, taking a few minutes to work through how a solution would work, and (critically) explaining how it was going to work. Whether a simple call back to another Tier 1 CSR will get you that type of person versus having to fight to get to a Tier 2 person may vary.
ControlsFreak
5d ago
When I talk about consensus morality, I'm talking today.
This definition is valid at, like, every snapshot point in time, then, yes? The same action could be "evil" at one point in time and "not evil" at a different point in time?
ControlsFreak
5d ago
Those are all necessary and sufficient conditions in your definition of evil? We can go through them one by one, but maybe let's just start with the last one. If, uh, someone (who?) isn't "willing to enforce" a "preference", then it's, uh, not evil to go against it? What even is "willing to enforce"? Like, does the enforcement need to be realized? Can it be weighed against other things? If the someone (who?) is like, "Yeah, I'm willing to enforce this, but due to other considerations (other priorities, something inherently difficult about detection or enforcement, etc.), I'm not going to put too much time and effort into it," does that still count for determining whether something is evil or not?
ControlsFreak
5d ago
Whence a consensus that evil means "in bad taste"? I guess perhaps you're not incorporating consensus at this level of generality, so are you instead just asserting that your definition of evil is "something done in bad taste, as measured by some vibes about a consensus" or something?
ControlsFreak
6d ago
I'm using a common-sense or consensus definition of evil
What's that? Whence consensus?
ControlsFreak
6d ago
@P-Necromancer I think I'd like to bundle these two, as they're getting at a similar thing.
I agree with what you both say. Plenty of humans will come up with ridiculous things to do, or even just things that might make sense but have problems, and if you're not supervising them appropriately, they may just do their things. But that's like, the essence of technical debt?
For the example of fixing some OS issue, imagine I didn't have really any technical knowledge of how things work (say, I don't really even know what the registry is unless a tech/LLM tells me something about it). Maybe I'd take my computer to a human tech. Could even be a corporate IT guy. Perhaps, knowing that I don't have a clue, I just give it to him. "Here's my problem; please fix it Ralph Rufus."
Who knows what he'll get up to? What stuff he'll mess with along the way. Things he'll try just because, and then maybe leave it in a changed state, even though it didn't progress toward a solution to the actual problem. This cruft can build up. After years of having this corporate IT guy and that corporate IT guy and the other corporate IT guy just doing who knows what, maybe at some point, things get bizarre enough that the next one says, "Dude, stuff is wild here; we probably should just wipe it and clean install."
That makes sense, and it's utterly routine in the world with humans. I hear my wife tell me about weird stuff that's broken on her work computer... and even weirder stuff that whatever IT guy she talked to did. She doesn't have a clue what's going on. I get it.
I also agree that as of right now1, the best is when you know enough about what's going on that you can get it to explain things and are able to then understand it, yourself. Get it to document things fully, provide a suite of tests, have a back-and-forth. It can provide tons of utility!2
...but, if you genuinely lack enough knowledge to be a competent participant of that back-and-forth, it still may let you "just do stuff". There can still be tons of utility here, as it may still get things right a lot, and folks who have had some problem that they've wanted to fix for ages and could never get the time with a competent human and certainly couldn't figure it out on their own will be able to fix many of those problems, and it will be wonderful. It may also, occasionally, along the way, build up technical debt.
Note that I'm not saying that this is some unique problem that is fundamentally different from dealing with humans. Instead, I'm now conceptualizing it in the same way that I conceptualize human-driven technical debt. I think that dovetails well with both of your descriptions. If there is a downside, it's probably that many folks who wouldn't have ever tried to fix that OS problem or make that code will now do it, and they might be building up technical debt while they're also accumulating utility. They may choose to do it a lot, and they may jump into it with both eyes shut. This may still be the right choice! They may still get more utility from all the wins than they lose from either discrete bad events or built-up cruft.
This is a conflict, a tension, which is why I said that I was, indeed, conflicted. I'm am still neither an "LLM good" or "LLM bad" person.
1 - I continue to take no position on the question of to what extent future progress will render this concern de minimis.
2 - To briefly respond to the 'shouldn't you just hang up on a human customer service agent who you can tell is going to be unhelpful', yes. Absolutely. I didn't bother with the specific issue of it getting hung up on deleting the registry value, because I was close enough that hearing it append its bad idea one more time wasn't important to me. I did mention that I used multiple LLMs, and that was part of it; I left out every twist and turn of the story, but yeah, I not only just scrapped the prior context; I even just jumped to different models. This is a useful skill to have, when dealing with humans and LLMs. Even when dealing with some human professionals, my life changed long ago when I realized that I could grasp some understanding of what their "box" of the world was, and once I realized that my situation was outside of their "box", I just moved on from them. But the concern here is that you have to have just enough knowledge about the thing to be able to gauge where their box is, when you're outside of it, or when they're going off the rails. There are a lot of people who don't have that with humans, and they're not going to have that with the many many more things that they're going to want to do with LLMs. I don't have that with all sorts of different humans or things that I might want to do with LLMs.
Ah, so I realize now that the comment I was replying to was talking about the rising cost of low-end labor more generally; when I had written my reply, I was for some reason just focusing on the change in hotel cleaning strategies.
I do not know fully what the nature of it is. There's probably a JMP somewhere that does a good job. Here are a couple fed papers talking about it.
I did, however, notice that there was an NYT article this morning claiming that the price for crops is apparently low enough that some farmers are considering letting it rot in the field. Not even unharvested; it's talking about possibly dumping them back onto the field. Also last week Brian Potter took a longer view, observing that crop prices have trended significantly down. These things would be a bit strange for a view that is sort of one-dimensional (labor shortage from immigration restrictions/COVID/magic/etc -> higher wages -> higher prices). These things are obviously multifactored. That second fed paper definitely talked about higher wages on the low end being a thing. Perhaps the price of crops would have been even lower if we could have counterfactually, magically tweaked just the one variable of agricultural workers/wages.
The multifactored nature of an incredible interdependent thing like an economy makes it pretty dangerous to overly focus on any one component. That's why I find it useful to scope back out to more broad reasoning to at least level set. Tightening immigration restrictions moves the supply curve to the left, which raises prices and reduces output. How much? It depends. Probably not infinity. It will likely also have effects that spread beyond the narrow markets that employ the most illegals. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? More information is required about the value function in question.
More options
Context Copy link