Agree probably with both sentences. But still fail to pin down exactly where the argument I reported fails.
For act/omission I guess it might have sth to do with: I'm a human in the loop; if you induce me to not save sb, it doesn't feel exactly the same as when you cut the rope and prevent the rope from saving sb.
Seems to have hit a nerve judging the downvoting rate of -1 karma/hour or so, aye. I'd have expected agreement karma to go down but less so the overall karma as in: not too terrible to think about that question even if the conjecture turns out to be wrong - though everyone's taste is of course different.
I now explicitly flag the post as what it is meant to be: A thought provocation - meant to explore whether/where a quick thought goes wrong (I thought without saying quick takes are meant for that in particular too).
David and Goliath. It's always easy to hate the the officially by far strongest one especially if it can easily be seen as a huge evil force in the world, and it is not a secret that many Chinese see the US as exactly that. And it is not as if a few random US peasants had been annihilated, but the World Trade Center, which I guess can easily be seen/spectated as a sort of symbol of US economic power and influence.
I think though celebrating the 3 Gorges Dam breaking would not be in the Overton window, while acc. to OP it seems to be in the Overton window for Chinese about the 9/11. So there's still a strong social difference.
I guess that would be slightly different if an airplane crashed into some buildings famous for Chinese world influance or dominance, like the WTC may have been (or perceived during the 9/11 discussions) to some extent.
1Agree with a lot.
One point I consider a classic mistake:
Despite a limited number of jobs, humans remain critical to the economy as consumers. If we don’t keep a large consumer base, the entire economic system collapses and we no longer have the money to fund AI.
Extremely common fallacy, nevertheless rather easily seen to be wrong! Instead, whether the rich keep their money or the poor get part of it: Anyone who wants to earn money/profits, wants it only because they can use it one way or other. Therefore, the real economy does not collapse just because we don't redistribute. It just produces different things: the airplanes, palaces, rockets, skying domes in the desert or what have you that the rich prefer over the poor's otherwise demanded cars, house, booze whatever [adjust all examples to your liking to describe what instead rich & poor'd like have a taste for in the AI future]. Even if you'd rebut the rich 'don't consume, they just save', then they'll greedily save by investing, which means also recycles their revenues into the economy.[1]
Trivially, the rich then also exactly do have the money to fund the AI, if we don't redistribute.
[Edit: the remainder which can be ignored just describes a fear of mine, which is just that: a fear (with many reasons why its scenario may eventually not play out that way/). It is related to the above but not meant as any substantive claim and it does not impact my actual claim above about the OP making a logical econ mistake.
Because thus ultimately rather obviously none needs us 'to consume as otherwise the economy collapses', I fear something in a direction of a tripple whammy of: (i) half impoverished gullible people, (ii) flooded with AI perfectioned controlled social media and fake stories as to why whatever fake thing would be the reason for their increasing misery, and (iii) international competition in a low marginal cost world with mobile productive resources (meaning strong redistribution on a national level is actually not trivial). Conspiring to undermine the natural solution of a generous UBI. So I fear a small ruling elite undermining the prospects for large material gains for the masses - though who knows, maybe we do keep enough mental and physical power to actually 'demand our +- fair share' as a population. What makes me pessimistic is that already today we see a relatively small western elite profiteer from worldwide resources with a large share not benefiting commensurately, and clear authocratic populistic tendencies already being supported by social/general media even in advanced countries.]
- ^
To preempt a potential confusion: I don not say printing money and handing to the poor would not boost an economy. That can work - at least in the short run anyway - as it's expansionary fiscal/monetary policy. But this is a very different mechanism from directly transferring from rich to poor.
Love your ring analogy, find it quite pertinent (and catching myself as thinking, half-consciously, just a bit as you suggest indeed)
But re
[..] gave the terrible speech [..] He effectively one-shot everyone of a particular nerdish variety into becoming obsessed with the power of the Ring/AI,
to express it using your analogy itself: I'm pretty sure, instead, one way or other, the Ring would by now have found its way to sway us even in the absence of Eliezer.
Heads up: 'Almost looking fwd to my next dispute now' ;-).
Always wanted that and looking fwd to trying, thanks. I think this is exactly great for persons who sometimes have a nagging doubt whether they really are objectively right even if their gut feeling/thoughts tell them they are. Planning to revert back when I actually tried it.
Or move to the country next door.
..to mention just one of the most obvious complexities your suggestion left out.
Here eventually my elaboration I announced above: How Econ 101 makes us blinder on trade, morals, jobs with AI – and on marginal costs.