links 10/21/26: https://roamresearch.com/#/app/srcpublic/page/10-21-2026

• • https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/against-against-handover Scott Alexander comes out as sympathetic to "handing over" government to AIs. People are really going to hate him for this. but I'm glad he's making the case. There are at least considerations in favor of rule-by-AIs.
    • The thing is, humans who are highly motivated to rule other humans are generally terrible people. This is why "a government of laws, not of men" is desirable; we want systems of checks and balances and deliberative processes to constrain brute tyranny.
    • also, stupid and impulsive people vote! "what the public wants" is often terrible. the case for democracy isn't that the People are wise, it's that a government that has no accountability to the People may be even more arbitrary and destructive than mob rule, as there is no incentive to provide good governance; and unaccountable and unpopular government may also be deposed in a violent revolution, which is much worse than a peaceful electoral transition.
    • we may need to rethink all of these assumptions in light of the availability of abundant automated "intelligent-enough" technologies.
      • AI-assisted citizens may be less mob-like than unaided ones, if reflection and research are made more accessible to people who wouldn't ordinarily do much of it; the right kind of "guardian angel AI" may make the ideal of participatory/deliberative democracy closer to reality.
      • a "government of laws" (and processes) can be unable to cope with complex and fast-moving realities, which is part of why people want to vest authority in single persons who can "get things done". but AI processes and procedures can be inherently more flexible.
      • an AI-assisted leader, in an AI-infused economy, may be just as unaccountable as a tyrant, even in a nominal democracy. maybe an all-powerful bot given some more-or-less humane objective is preferable to a bot-powered warlord. (or maybe not; maybe the AI's true objective will always be so alien that you'd prefer any human leader no matter how rapacious.)
        • there are Harry Turtledove science fiction books set in an alt-WWII with aliens trying to conquer Earth, and people have to decide whether they'd prefer to ally with Nazis, who are at least humans, or throw in their lot with the aliens. Unfortunately Turtledove writes the aliens as basically Imperial China in Space, which any sensible person would prefer to the actual Nazis; but one could easily imagine something so threatening to all human life that surrender to the worst actually-existing humans is preferable.
  • https://stevekrouse.com/ends thoughts on education
  • https://www.betonit.ai/p/milgram-vs-power-relations Bryan Caplan claims that the supposedly powerful actually have little practical ability to coerce and are granted "power" mostly voluntarily. his takeaway is that you should choose to make your own decisions. I don't disagree exactly but I'm left with a sense of unease.
    • one question is: Caplan is a libertarian. what is the point of wanting a less coercive government if you think that most coercion is illusory anyway? Why isn't "just break the law, you'll probably get away with it" good enough? I think people don't just want to be able to do things without facing direct penalty; they want their rights recognized. in other words, people want other people to know that they are not acting wrongly, that their behavior is licit.