Beyond Singularity — LessWrong

LESSWRONG
LW

Replying toShould we aim for flourishing over mere survival? The Better Futures series.

Should we aim for flourishing over mere survival? The Better Futures series.

I agree that we should shift our focus from pure survival to prosperity. But I disagree with the dichotomy that the author seems to be proposing. Survival and prosperity are not mutually exclusive, because long-term prosperity is impossible with a high risk of extinction.

Perhaps a more productive formulation would be the following: “When choosing between two strategies, both of which increase the chances of survival, we should give priority to the one that may increase them slightly less, but at the same time provides a huge leap in the potential for prosperity.”

However, I believe that the strongest scenarios are those that eliminate the need for such a compromise altogether. These are options... (read more)

Replying toLessWrong has been acquired by EA

Beyond Singularity10mo

LessWrong has been acquired by EA

Haha, brilliant! The loot box mechanic is inspired! Finally, a way to gamify intellectual progress. Question: can we trade duplicate +100 upvotes on the community market?

Replying toLessWrong has been acquired by EA

Beyond Singularity10mo

LessWrong has been acquired by EA

Finally, the singularity is near... the singularity of LessWrong posts being evaluated by engagement metrics and monetization potential! Called it – always knew the 'Game Culture Civilization' model would eventually be implemented by a major publisher. Looking forward to seeing how EA balances the status economy with microtransactions for faster 'Pure Game' progression. This acquisition has real synergy!

Replying toGood Research Takes are Not Sufficient for Good Strategic Takes

Beyond Singularity10mo

Good Research Takes are Not Sufficient for Good Strategic Takes

Excellent points on the distinct skillset needed for strategy, Neel. Tackling the strategic layer, especially concerning societal dynamics under ASI influence where feedback is poor, is indeed critical and distinct from technical research.

Applying strategic thinking beyond purely technical alignment, I focused on how societal structure itself impacts the risks and stability of long-term human-ASI coexistence. My attempt to design a societal framework aimed at mitigating those risks resulted in the model described in my post, Proposal for a Post-Labor Societal Structure to Mitigate ASI Risks: The 'Game Culture Civilization' (GCC) Model

Whether the strategic choices and reasoning within that model hold up to scrutiny is exactly the kind of difficult evaluation your post calls for. Feedback focused on the strategic aspects (the assumptions, the proposed mechanisms for altering incentives, the potential second-order effects, etc.), as distinct from just the technical feasibility, would be very welcome and relevant to this discussion on evaluating strategic takes.

Proposal for a Post-Labor Societal Structure to Mitigate ASI Risks: The 'Game Culture Civilization' (GCC) Model

Beyond Singularity

11mo

Abstract: Accelerating AI development presents existential risks and necessitates examining future human societal structures in the context of mass automation. Current socio-economic systems, particularly capitalism, generate incentives that arguably exacerbate these risks (e.g., development races, coordination failures). This paper proposes a conceptual model, the "Game Culture Civilization" (GCC), as an alternative framework potentially capable of mitigating certain risks while providing meaningful human existence. The model is predicated on Universal Basic Income (UBI), a status/reputation-based economy, and the utilization of "Games" (broadly defined) as the primary mechanism for motivation, skill retention, and managed AI integration. Key GCC mechanisms, their potential impact on ASI risks, and the model's primary vulnerabilities are analyzed.

1. Introduction: The... (read 1003 more words →)

Replying toOn (Not) Feeling the AGI

Beyond Singularity11mo

On (Not) Feeling the AGI

One of the fundamental shifts that still seems missing in the thinking of Altman, Thompson, and many others discussing AGI is the shift from technological thinking to civilizational thinking.

They're reasoning in the paradigm of "products" — something that can diffuse, commoditize, slot into platform dynamics, maybe with some monetization tricks. Like smartphones or transistors. But AGI is not a product. It's the point after which the game itself changes.

By definition, AGI brings general-purpose cognitive ability. That makes the usual strategic questions — like "what’s more valuable, the model or the user base?" — feel almost beside the point. The higher-order question becomes: who sets the rules of the game?

This is not a shift in tools; it’s a shift in the structure of goals, norms, and meaning.

If you don’t feel the AGI — maybe it’s because you’re not yet thinking at the right level of abstraction.

Replying toFour Futures For Cognitive Labor

Beyond Singularity11mo

Four Futures For Cognitive Labor

Great set of analogies—especially the framing along the axes of tool vs. replacement and demand elasticity. That second axis is often overlooked in AI labor discussions, and it really does flip the sign of expected outcomes.

One angle I’d add: sometimes automation doesn’t just replace the labor behind a product—it eliminates the need for the product itself. In the ice trade example, the key shift wasn’t just labor being replaced by refrigerators, but that the very dependence on shipped ice vanished. There was no new, scaled-up "modern ice industry"—the entire category dissolved.

That could happen with cognitive labor, too—not because LLMs write better essays, but because essays stop being a relevant format. If an... (read more)