An information hazard (henceforth shortened to "info hazard") is a risk that (true) information shared will either cause harm, or provide another with the means to cause harm. Well-known within the global catastrophic risk (GCR) reduction community is that merely discussing GCRs may result in info hazards. The classic example of this is discussion of how terrorists might use biotechnology to engineer a pandemic will be used by terrorists as inspiration or instructions on how to do just that.
In the past, I've privately discussed not publicizing some information I write on GCRs, as they may pose an info hazard for increasing GCRs. However, I will not be running every thing I write on the topic through some sort of test to check for info hazards before I publish or publicize. Yet, that doesn't mean I have categorical confidence in my ability to identify what is or isn't an info hazard. What doesn't appear to be an info hazard to me may appear to obviously be an info hazard to others. Because of whatever cause or bias, I may have blindspots regarding this others don't.
Thus, this blog post acts as a reminder that if you think something I publish poses an info hazard, either regarding GCRs or something else, please let me know. If you explain your rationale for why you think something is an info hazard and I disagree, we can discuss it, and I will during the discussion retract as best I can from the public Internet the piece in question. However, them being so rare, and readers very unlikely to tell me something is an info hazard when it actually isn't, I expect I will earnestly believe something is indeed an info hazard when faced with a claim of such. So, I will likely delete from the public eye any material you believe is an info hazard.
Saturday 30 January 2016
Tuesday 5 January 2016
My Personal Focus On Global Catastrophic Risks
There are plenty of reasons I could rationalize for why a general focus on global catastrophic risks (GCRs) is more important than a special focus on any one GCR or existential risk (x-risk). Ultimately, though, I think I just have an advantage of thinking about GCRs in a generic fashion.
- I'm not especially talented at maths or sciences. Thus, I'll never be a researcher for the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI), or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Reflecting upon the neglected consideration of personal fit on altruistic career selection, as outlined in Will MacAskill's 2015 book Doing Good Better, and reading from the 80,000 Hours (80k) blog, I'm convinced I can do the most good, vis-a-vis GCRs, with a more generic focus at this time.
- I'm familiar with different groups focusing on various individual GCRs or x-risks. Climate change is one so into the public domain it doesn't even bother mentioning who focuses on it. Environmentalism is a social movement in dozens upon dozens of countries, with millions of adherents around the world, and influences every sort of human institution. With other global catastrophic risks, there seem to be a handful of government and/or non-profit organizations which focus on them. However, there doesn't seem to me enough of a broad and informal network focused on the full suite of GCRs and x-risks. For example, there is an 'environmental movement', and even an 'A.I. safety' movement/community, but nobody mentions a 'GCR community'. I'd like to see this change. I think I can play a role in making this change.
- Building on (2), there is a lack of coordination and consolidated communication/strategy across all GCRs. Due to how neglected and important a focus on GCRs is among folks in general, there needs to be more awareness between the communities around individual risks of each other. Part of this opinion is motivated by my believe different risks will interact with each other, and while organizations like the Global Catastrophic Risks Institute (GCRI) and its allies are aware of this, there isn't enough awareness of intersectional risks among organizations working 'on the ground' to mitigate risks.
- Global Catastrophic Risks Institute (GCRI)
- Future of Humanity Institute (FHI)
- Cambridge Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER)
- Future of Life Institute (FLI)
- Open Philanthropy Project (Open Phil)
- Global Priorities Project (GPP)
- Skoll Global Threats Fund
The Changing Landscape of Television Production
[Note: the below seems the case for North American television. I don't know the history of television in other countries, so this may not apply.]
A Very Incomplete History of Television Production
In the last year I've been thinking everyone needs to rethink how we watch television. For several decades before the turn of the century, there were fewer TV channels and there was much less variety for viewers. As viewers had little choice, they had to take what they could get on the few channels. Networks had leeway to lower production values in some way. Conversely, they were also limited by audience preferences. Shows needed to be written in an episodic and generic fashion so they could appeal to as many folks as possible. While a network didn't feel threatened by a wide variety of channels, they didn't want to be outcompeted by the other one or two networks on the air.
Over the years, cable became more ubiquitous, and the variety in shows increased. However, the few networks became a handful of media conglomerates which owned most channels. Channels discriminate between different sections of the viewing public to specialize appeal. While this has increased variety, the transition from before wasn't complete. An example of this is how for many years HBO marketed itself as the channel that stood out from the pack to produce unique quality content.
However, it's only in the last decade viewers can discriminate among shows, series and their producers as much as producers and channels can discriminate between viewers. Because everyone can choose between Netflix and other streaming services, YouTube and other sites giving small-time producers the ability to produce a greater diversity of shows, and other trends of the Internet, they can select to watch whatever they want. With more competition for major networks, they need to try harder to produce quality content. Almost all companies have caught onto this a bit. For example, series like 'Mad Men' and 'Breaking Bad' have ushered in what's called the "Golden Age of Television". Streaming services are picking up shows, like "Community" and "The Mindy Project", that were cancelled by major networks. I can imagine the elation of so many people had digital streaming to pick up a series like "Firefly" when it was cancelled. Whether its any of the unique shows produced by Netflix, or series from the BBC making it across the ocean, atypical series are among the most popular among my friends.
Discrepancies In What We Want Vs. What We Get
The Internet has allowed folks to binge TV series. Pretty much everyone has indulged in spending a week straight watching the entirety of a series. For some series, this makes lots of sense. Something like 'Breaking Bad' or 'House of Cards' were produced with the anticipation viewers would watch all episodes back-to-back. Whole seasons are produced as short movies, one after another, as a complete arc which requires watching it all to be satisfied. However, major networks still get lots of money off the old formula of producing cookie-cutter episodes which can be picked up and watched one at a time.
So, still perhaps a majority of the money in television is poured into producing TV shows which appeal to the lowest common denominator, and hence, nobody in particular. The present-day typical example of this is the sitcom "The Big Bang Theory". While I still occasionally enjoy it, it has become the butt of many jokes and also much derision among most people I know. It's going into it's ninth season. From the same producers, the canned sitcom "Two and a Half Men" was on for eleven seasons, years passed when it deserved to be cancelled.
The problem is the common denominator is still shows on basic cable, or shows on the affiliate channels of major networks. The Nielsen ratings system in North America dominates. How it works are cable boxes are put in the homes of random viewing families which scan and then are analyzed to see which channels "typical viewers" are watching. This informs which shows are being the most watched, so networks know which shows will garner to most money from commericals, so they renew those ones and axe other ones which have niche appeal. While it may be a majority of viewing happens over the Internet, whether legal or illegal streaming or downloading from thousands of sources, producers of TV don't pick up on this.
I think one reason the formula of major producers don't respond to the changes tastes of viewers from generic to more varied programming is because they don't know how to gauge who's watching what. Media conglomerates don't know how to gauge viewership across so many different devices, laptops, smartphones, you name it, folks are watching across. This hasn't stopped Netflix from doing so, which is why they're able to produce bang-on content for any type of viewer. However, Netflix was born into the era of digital streaming, so they designed their metrics to gauge viewing across more than just folks standard TVs. Major networks don't know how to gauge what niche shows each of ten percent of their viewers are diehard fans for, rather than mediocre shows a plurality of viewers find passable. So, they'll keep producing the latter.
Conclusion: (Some) Mediocrity Will Persist
I don't think the Nielsen ratings system is going away soon. It's weakened, but it doesn't seem to be on its last legs. Baby Boomers will continue to have major cable subscriptions for the next twenty years, and enough of the next generation, the key demographic of 18-45 year-olds, watches enough cable to satisfy the needs of networks and advertisers. Really, it's only when the demographic trend switches from Baby Boomers and cable to younger viewers and digital streaming that how producers will definitely change how they respond. Until then, we'll have this weird and unsatisfying mix of excellent and mediocre television battling for the heart of pop culture.
So, while folks are happy with the variety and diversity of series they watch, perhaps they wish some of them would have a higher profile, so they would last longer or had higher production values. Maybe they just want more money thrown at more creative and experimental shows. The switch from one thing for everyone to something special for everyone likely won't be complete for a long time. I anticipated writing this post with more thoughts on what comes next, how we should watch shows differently. However, just covering how television production works and why is long enough. I'll cover other thoughts in future posts.
A Very Incomplete History of Television Production
In the last year I've been thinking everyone needs to rethink how we watch television. For several decades before the turn of the century, there were fewer TV channels and there was much less variety for viewers. As viewers had little choice, they had to take what they could get on the few channels. Networks had leeway to lower production values in some way. Conversely, they were also limited by audience preferences. Shows needed to be written in an episodic and generic fashion so they could appeal to as many folks as possible. While a network didn't feel threatened by a wide variety of channels, they didn't want to be outcompeted by the other one or two networks on the air.
Over the years, cable became more ubiquitous, and the variety in shows increased. However, the few networks became a handful of media conglomerates which owned most channels. Channels discriminate between different sections of the viewing public to specialize appeal. While this has increased variety, the transition from before wasn't complete. An example of this is how for many years HBO marketed itself as the channel that stood out from the pack to produce unique quality content.
However, it's only in the last decade viewers can discriminate among shows, series and their producers as much as producers and channels can discriminate between viewers. Because everyone can choose between Netflix and other streaming services, YouTube and other sites giving small-time producers the ability to produce a greater diversity of shows, and other trends of the Internet, they can select to watch whatever they want. With more competition for major networks, they need to try harder to produce quality content. Almost all companies have caught onto this a bit. For example, series like 'Mad Men' and 'Breaking Bad' have ushered in what's called the "Golden Age of Television". Streaming services are picking up shows, like "Community" and "The Mindy Project", that were cancelled by major networks. I can imagine the elation of so many people had digital streaming to pick up a series like "Firefly" when it was cancelled. Whether its any of the unique shows produced by Netflix, or series from the BBC making it across the ocean, atypical series are among the most popular among my friends.
Discrepancies In What We Want Vs. What We Get
The Internet has allowed folks to binge TV series. Pretty much everyone has indulged in spending a week straight watching the entirety of a series. For some series, this makes lots of sense. Something like 'Breaking Bad' or 'House of Cards' were produced with the anticipation viewers would watch all episodes back-to-back. Whole seasons are produced as short movies, one after another, as a complete arc which requires watching it all to be satisfied. However, major networks still get lots of money off the old formula of producing cookie-cutter episodes which can be picked up and watched one at a time.
So, still perhaps a majority of the money in television is poured into producing TV shows which appeal to the lowest common denominator, and hence, nobody in particular. The present-day typical example of this is the sitcom "The Big Bang Theory". While I still occasionally enjoy it, it has become the butt of many jokes and also much derision among most people I know. It's going into it's ninth season. From the same producers, the canned sitcom "Two and a Half Men" was on for eleven seasons, years passed when it deserved to be cancelled.
The problem is the common denominator is still shows on basic cable, or shows on the affiliate channels of major networks. The Nielsen ratings system in North America dominates. How it works are cable boxes are put in the homes of random viewing families which scan and then are analyzed to see which channels "typical viewers" are watching. This informs which shows are being the most watched, so networks know which shows will garner to most money from commericals, so they renew those ones and axe other ones which have niche appeal. While it may be a majority of viewing happens over the Internet, whether legal or illegal streaming or downloading from thousands of sources, producers of TV don't pick up on this.
I think one reason the formula of major producers don't respond to the changes tastes of viewers from generic to more varied programming is because they don't know how to gauge who's watching what. Media conglomerates don't know how to gauge viewership across so many different devices, laptops, smartphones, you name it, folks are watching across. This hasn't stopped Netflix from doing so, which is why they're able to produce bang-on content for any type of viewer. However, Netflix was born into the era of digital streaming, so they designed their metrics to gauge viewing across more than just folks standard TVs. Major networks don't know how to gauge what niche shows each of ten percent of their viewers are diehard fans for, rather than mediocre shows a plurality of viewers find passable. So, they'll keep producing the latter.
Conclusion: (Some) Mediocrity Will Persist
I don't think the Nielsen ratings system is going away soon. It's weakened, but it doesn't seem to be on its last legs. Baby Boomers will continue to have major cable subscriptions for the next twenty years, and enough of the next generation, the key demographic of 18-45 year-olds, watches enough cable to satisfy the needs of networks and advertisers. Really, it's only when the demographic trend switches from Baby Boomers and cable to younger viewers and digital streaming that how producers will definitely change how they respond. Until then, we'll have this weird and unsatisfying mix of excellent and mediocre television battling for the heart of pop culture.
So, while folks are happy with the variety and diversity of series they watch, perhaps they wish some of them would have a higher profile, so they would last longer or had higher production values. Maybe they just want more money thrown at more creative and experimental shows. The switch from one thing for everyone to something special for everyone likely won't be complete for a long time. I anticipated writing this post with more thoughts on what comes next, how we should watch shows differently. However, just covering how television production works and why is long enough. I'll cover other thoughts in future posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)