I agree that stopping would be very difficult, but I am concerned that surviving without stopping would also be difficult, to the extent that the claim presented here that we have to find a way to survive without stopping doesn't hold up without supporting evidence about the relative difficulties of the two paths.
The big advantage of scraping the twitter account's posting history is that it lets you back test. Any clever analysis we do now could only be forward tested, even if google surfaced the relevant data.
I would love to get involved in a lesswrong gamedev blog ring. High opportunity for it to be very weird, probably not much Unity even if it would do us good.
No one wants to read and proceess others thoughts, even if they are great, if they are unpolished. There's just too much out there. That being said, dumping your own thoughts unpolished into a document is great, and there's rarely a reason not to do so publically as scooping is in practice incredibly rare, and usually done by convergent evolution not espionage. (e.g., the minimum viable code for my latest accepted cvpr submission was on github as well as up on my blog labelled "CVPR Equivariance" for over a year before I got it polished enough to actually submit, no one came anywhere close to scooping.
"No billionaires" as a slogan has another problem, that billionaire is not a very good category (in the rationalist, cut reality at the seams sense.) The incomiest [sic] billionaire has made on average 700 times more per year than the poorest billionaire, but they have the same category name so we try to apply the same intuitions when predicting events around them. For comparison, we probably wouldn't put someone making $16,000 a year in the same category as someone making $11,000,000 a year when making intuitive category based predictions.
I don't get it- tier 1, 2, and 3 are all computable, so by turing they can emulate each other with perfect fidelity- does this approach say if a tier 1 emulates a conscious tier 3, it just makes a p zombie?
I'm not talking about the US, it already has and uses this capability, along with israel, and I'm sure china has it too but they don't seem to use it.. I'm talking about russia, china, iran, pakistan, walmart, taiwan, isis, Micheal Reeves- and all able to take up the strategy of modifying other countries leadership via droning the leaders they don't like,
1The US's capability of drone striking anyone anywhere will get much cheaper, and working out which nation or non-state actor performed which drone strike will get much harder. Basically, the dynamics we currently see around cyberattacks, but kinetic.
Weaponized drones that recharge on power lines are at this point looking inevitable. if you missed the chance to freak out before everyone else about AI or covid, nows another chance.
https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/voltair
It is load bearing that imprisonment is more expensive to the state than harmful to the punished. In this cost structure, a polity that wants to do more punishment has to earn it by building state capacity and can't go that much further than the US is right now, even if the people hunger for more and more justice. Without a social more against cheap death penalty, the amount of punishment being handed out can grow pretty much without bound even as state capacity collapses, and following the gradient gets you to pol pot / great leap forward / russian revolution style mass death in a jiffy.
I'd be cynical enough to guess that the boundary in price of punishment below which collapse occurs, is right around where the citizens are getting more sadness from increased taxes than joy in inflicting suffering, with political opinions formed with approximately zero consideration for the possibility that they may be punished.