Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions


but I see no reason to think they'll just utterly fail at scaling production at those factories

Oh they'll scale just fine.

It's just that nobody will buy all those cars. They are already not selling them all, and we are about to enter the biggest recession of many of our lifetimes

Well, for one did you ever notice how people act differently in different situations? (for example among family, friends, work, acquaintances at the gym, or online) If you limit yourself to a single situation, there is not any person on earth that you could 'reconstruct' sufficiently well.

The 50% annual revenue growth that they've averaged over the last 9 years shows no signs of stopping

What makes you think that?

I am of the completely opposite opinion, and would be amazed if they are able to repeat that even for a single year longer.

All the "creative" bookkeeping only work for so long, and right now seems to be the moment to pop bubbles, no?

Answer by Bernhard-12

A sufficiently detailed record of a person's behavior

What you have in mind is "A sufficiently detailed record of a person's behavior when interacting with the computer/phone"

How is that sufficient to any reasonable degree?


Because of perverse, counterproductive and wrong monetary incentives.

There are a few complexities:

There is only really one, and that is not accounted for.

You want to generate electricity that you actually use.

I'm no expert on your part of the world, but in Central Europe electricity prices sometimes turn negative, because eletricity is generated that nobody needs. So large producers have to pay money, to get rid of it. Taking a pickaxe to your solar panel would be net positive in that situation.

Why? because everybody maximizes electricity produced and not electricity that can actually be used.

Typically the theoretical solution is simple: turn your solar panel somewhat towards the setting sun. Generate less solar energy at noon, when no one needs it, and generate more during the evening, when everybody is at home, cooking and watching TV, and consumption is spiking.


Sadly, no one does this, because of the wrong incentives.

Are you familiar with ergodicity economics?

I recommend Ole Peters' papers on the topic. That way you won't have to construct your epicycles upon the epicicles commonly know as utility calculus.


We are taught to always maximize the arithmetic mean

By whom?

The probable answer is: By economists.

Quite simply: they are wrong. Why?


That's what ergodicity economics tries to explain.

In brief, economics typically wrongly assumes that the average over time can be substituted with the average over an ensemble.

Ergodicity economics shows that there are some +EV bets, that do not pay off for the individual

For example you playing a bet of the above type 100 times is assumed to be the same than 100 people each betting once.

This is simply wrong in the general case. For a trivial example, if there is a minimum bet, then you can simply go bankrupt before playing 100 games


Interestingly however, if 100 people each bet once, and then afterwards redistribute their wealth, then their group as a whole is better off than before. Which is why insurance works

And importantly, which is exactly why cooperation among humans exists. Cooperation that, according to economists, is irrational, and shouldn't even exist.


Anyway I'm butchering it. I can only recommend Ole Peters' papers

To me this is a good example of a too theoretic discussion, and as the saying goes: In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. (But in practice there is).

My counterargument is a different one, and I kind of already have to interrupt you right at the start:

If there is no death, [,,,]

Putting "immortal animals" into any search engine gives lots of examples of things that get pretty close. So we can talk about reality, no need to talk only about Gedankenexperimente. So the first question cannot be: "Why is the counterargument wrong"?

Instead it should be: "Why are there no immortal living beings that dominate. Why are all of them more or less unimportant in the grand scheme of things?"

And the answer is pretty obvious I think. Because it's simply unfavorable being immortal. It may be due to evolutionary bottlenecks, or due to energetic ones (inefficiency of repair vs reproduction for example), or a myriad of other ones. I don't think you get to simply state that obviously being immortal is better, when all of the observable evidence (as opposed to theoretical arguments) points in the opposite direction.

So what is clear is, that if you want to be immortal, you have to pay some kind of tax, some extra cost. And if you cannot, you will be of marginal importance, just like all other (near-)immortal beings.


Incidentally, I think this is why only rich people ever talk about immortality (In my experience). To them, it's clear that they will always be able to pay for this overhead, and simply don't worry about it. 

I would actually be interested if I am mistaken on that last point. Please speak up, if you are a person that is strongly interested in immortality, and you are not rich (for example when you went to school, you knew you were obviously different because your parents couldn't afford X). I would really be interested to learn what you see differently.

The most powerful one is probably The Financial System. Composed of stock exchanges, market makers, large and small investors, (federal reserve) banks, etc...

I mean that in the sense that an anthill might be considered intelligent, while a single ant will not.

Most of the trading is done algorithmically, and the parts that are not might as well be random noise for the most part. The effects of the financial system on the world at large are mostly unpredictable and often very bad.

The financial system is like "hope" according to one interpretation of the myth of Pandora's box. Hope escaped (together with all other evil forces) as the box was opened, and released upon the world. But humanity mistook hope for something good, and clings to it, while in fact it is the most evil force of them all.

Okay I may have overdone it a little bit now, but I hope you get the point

Very good idea
I did not do it. My argument would be that the impetus is not my own, it is external, your written word.

What stops you from making increasingly outlandish claims ("Your passphrase is actually this (e.g illegal/dangerous/lethal) action, not a simple thought" Where to draw the line?

Just as a point of reference, as a kid I regularly thought thoughts of the kind: "I know you're secretly spying on my thoughts but I don't care lalalala....." I never really specified who "you" was, I just did it so I could catch "them" unawares, and thereby "win". Just in case.

The difference is hard to define cleanly, but back then I was of the opinion that I did it of my own free will (Nowadays, with nonstop media having the influence it has, I would be less sure. Also I'm older, and a lot less creative)

Just for completeness, I found [this paper](, where they try to simulate the output of a specific type of neuron, and for best results require a DNN of 5-8 layers (with widths of ~128)

Load More