well, generally of people have economic power they will convert it to political power, and to weapons.
in the AI case, it will be so much easier for them, with the automation of drones and so much important infrastructure dependent of internet and hackable.
"vote" is simulacra-level 3 understanding of power, (and it's not that much power even now). who have the weapons and the economic power (by which i mean the ability to generate useful things), they are the ones with power.
you can overthrow democracy if the people with the weapons don't care about the vot... (read more)
I find the idea that if you have people who have no vote and not legal personhood but are smart and agentic and are able to generate value, then that eliminates the political concerns somewhat...a-historic.
"power" is not the ability to vote. ability to vote is subset of power.
Later, I decided on 'he/him' pronouns in all vignettes where gender dynamics seemed insignificant.
i think it's wrong, and create the impression that the scene is much more male dominated then it actually is.
in my opinion. the obvious thing to do is to conserve the actual gender ratio - by counting how many women there are, and then assign gender randomly from this distribution. either by making list with like 10 men and 2 women and then assign numbers to vignettes, or just assign randomly from the right kind of distribution. foe example, generate random... (read more)
that not the point of this shortform, but i actually repeatedly though there are not enough video games, so i want to disagree with this statement twice. one for Zvi's Everybody Knows reasons, and secondly because i think it's importantly false.
(the art theory of loneliness is interesting, but in similar way, it's sure look to me like art is social endeavor, and video games are rarely done by one person.)
There are things i believe should be decided on the level of law, and things that should decided on the social level. for example, being rude make person asshole, not criminal.
some of the questions are questions of law, but most of them are not questions of law.
" In practice, you are unlikely to stumble across Anki at all."
as someone who did stumble across Anki, that was weird to read.
i have a post i want to write (not in English) about how once upon a time i thought the right reaction to hypocrisy and fake standards is to expose how people actually are, and trust that people can adjust their expectations appropriately. now i much, much more pessimistic about this adjustment, and think that it probable that people will not adjust, and we will just have system when everyone is guilty, but everyone still doublethink to not notice that and not become comfortable with that.
also, starting acting like i'm already been watched sound like.... r... (read more)
here is my main counterarguments, and i will elaborate on them if asked:
The Light World allow to gather information that the Dark World disallow. it's in high-trust environments that i gathered examples of personal experiences i didn't know exist, and so learned more about the world, and have better Map of it.
people in the Dark World often fail to listen to other people. in the Autumn framework, they have filters that prevent them from see certain evidence.
i don't think all distrust id bad, but it's very common failure mode. and if you try to pass... (read more)
it seems your model is
no, this is not what i said. this is not at all what i said, and i actually said something that is very close to the opposite of that.
i don't know who to communicate if i say something and you come to the conclusion that i believe the opposite of that, so i'm bowing out.
i tried to explain that in various ways and repeating myself and doesn't sure it useful to do that again, and i get the feeling from that replay that you simply not understand my claim, despite me already made it in previous comment, and it doesn't feel you engage with any of my claims, so here is one last attempt:
if someone who err 1 time out of 100 make the conclusion is time was off, and change his algorithm to one that does not tell his joke, instead of updating his probability to tell this joke slightly less in a way that make him still tell the joke,... (read more)
so i obviously prefer to get better at things, and as part of normal life have more training data and become better at things.
and yet, what you describe still look to me like common failure mode. maybe i should just describe it instead, and what is the right reaction in my opinion.
person make jokes, 100 land one not. failure mode is to apologize, and to change the algorithm to avoid the bad joke, and tell only 10 jokes.
the right reaction is to correct, but not over-correct. and in real world trade offs, it mean predictably make mistakes, because there are ... (read more)
i know there are people that live like that, but i'm not, and when i do i find that unhealthy. i prefer not to do things just before the deadline. i'm now in time when i write every day too, and it feel good to write early, and to know i did my writing for the day. i like the feeling of accomplishment, and all the day feel like i did something useful in it.
what you describe look to me something like... adaptation to dysfunction, in a way that deny the existence of health. it's actually possible to do the work not on the deadline, and enjoy your free time a... (read more)
why you don't find it realistic? i find it very realist. people have so much discretion ability, but not infinity of it. like various cancer and other medical tests - you got some false positives and false negatives, and you can get better, but in lot of cases not infinity better.
my live full of places when i have imperfect algorithm and have no idea how to update. for less adversarial example - i'm not always capable to discern when my friend's cat want to play, aka, may scratch me.
i find the idea that people always know what they did right and any absence of omniscience weaponized ignorance really weird!
i, too, hold economic-based model of apology. apologizing mean to say "i owe you". like if i break something in store, i acknowledge i need to pay for it. which make the whole post feel like it miss the point.
What would it even mean to purportedly accept the cost "on one's ledger" but not change one's behavior going forward?
well, that i owe you. for example, i apologize for spilling the wine of your outfit. can i pay the cleaning price, or the price to replace it? this is not, in any way, mean i will avoid drinking wine in the future, or be more carefu... (read more)
if the joke land in 9 times out of 10, and Ben unable to discern when it lands and when not, it's still positive in expectation to tell the joke, and he don't know who to update the algorithm.
if it's 99 out of 100 that land, then it's obvious that the right thing to do is tell the jokes. and try to always learn something from this sound like the road to overfitting. i prefer people who accept that ridiculously good sucess rate of 99%, and apologize on the downside of the endorsed trade-off. it's sure better then... stop doing things that good in expectation because they good only 99% of the time? i really not sure what is the algorithm you advocate here.
while i dislike the word naughtiness and its connotations, i don't see the contradiction. as the post state int he start "They delight in breaking rules, but not rules that matter. ". all Decision Theory rules are rules that matter.
this doesn't answer the question of what rules to break and what not. but you cant be Lawful by following all laws in our way-to bureaucratic society.
my mother think that going outside while wearing pajamas is unthinkable. it can probably be described as naughty. it's also totally harmless.
but also, now that i thought about you... (read more)
the thing this post missing is the connection between the Process Crime and Actual Crime. the child have no reason to use the stepstool, beside to eat the cookies, in the vast majority of situations. is it true about lying to banks, or is in situation when Everyone guilty of some crime and the state get to lawfully punish whoever it want, by some criteria that are not written in the law?
this is empirical question with empirical answer, and when i saw disagreements about Process Crimes and Pedantic Rules in real life, it was of the form of "there are legitimate, non-criminal reasons to break this Process Rule" or "this Pedantic Rule is pretty costly to this set or rule-abiding citizens".
interesting, i came to the opposite conclusion. or, more concretely, i found that there are rules that i can follow 95% of the time, and it's actually better then follow it 100% of the time, and there are rules when i simply can't, and i slip all the way down the slippery slope. and a lot of time i can search for differentiator, or more complicated solution.
simple rules need for coordination, when you have about five words. but i have much wider channel to coordinate with future-me, and i should use it to my advantage.
so my lesson was that having rules tha... (read more)
this is why i specified:
economic power is not what written in law, but productivity, the ability to do things.
true. hence alignment can actually prevent that. but currently we have huggingface, and it sure look to me that we already have ai agents that want things and coordinate to achieve them. so the coordination is already solved-b... (read more)