There's definitely evil AI.
I agree that thinking critically about the way AGI can get bottlenecked by physical processes speed. While this is an important area of study and thought, I don't see how "there could be this bottleneck though!" matters to the discussion. It's true. There likely is this bottleneck. How big or small it is requires some thought and study, but that thought and study presupposes you already have an account for why the bottleneck operates as a real bottleneck from the perspective of a plausibly existing AGI.
Bizarre coincidence. Or maybe not.
Last night I was having 'the conversation' with a close friend and also found that the idea of speed of action was essential for explaining around the requirement of having to give a specific 'story'. We are both former StarCraft players so discussing things in terms of an ideal version of AlphaStar proved illustrative. If you know StarCraft, the idea of an agent being able to maximize the damage given and received for every unit, minerals mined, and resources expended, the dancing, casting, building, expanding, replenishing to the utmost degree, reveals the impossibility of a human being able to win against such an agent.
We wound up quite hung up on two objections. 1) Well, people are suspicious of AIs already, and 2) just don't give these agents access to the material world. And although we came to agreement on the replies to these objections, by that point we are far enough down the inferential working memory that the argument doesn't strike a chord anymore.
We have a reservation for 8 at 1pm. I am wearing a blue tshirt, that says 'nihilist', a copy of Unsong, and an infant strap.Come even if you feel nervous or shy. We will have fun, good conversation. I have been reading and thinking about the ontology of chance, what makes a good introduction to chemistry, and the St. Louis County Charter.
These are good points! I have been thinking the same thing. However, I don't imagine the upper institute requiring prerequisites, just an entrance exam. But a four year college offers basically the same thing except they lower transaction costs to basically zero or making that decision to commit to something you like. Hence declaring or changing majors is usually easy if you do it sophomore year.
The price disclosure issue isn't a problem. You can Google average cost of any private college and it will give a good ballpark estimate which matches the OPs 20k+ chart. Colleges engage in near perfect price discrimination. It's not really considered nefarious, because it's both redistributive and expands supply. The richer pay more, thus subsidizing the poorer. This allow more students than otherwise would be able to to afford the college.
This price discrimination expands supply by increasing the absolute quantity of students who can afford the schooling there. Charging 20k for everyone would allow fewer students to attend than charging 30k for some and 10k for others.
That's true at the prestigious four year colleges. But there are hundreds of private four year colleges. Their supply of students is stagnant and beginning to backslide. If you talk to private four year college admissions officers, many are afraid of the coming great contraction in school aged people. Only Texas isn't having a contraction.
In any case, in John's model, that coming contraction should result in a decrease in number of specialized courses. We'll see. Courses might be somewhat sticky though.
"You are not allowed to teach that Purgatory is not part of Catholic teaching, because it is."
Martin: "Why should I not be allowed to teach it? I am allowed to debate it in the classroom."
"The disputations are one thing. Public tracts are another."
"You're just mad because I called you corrupt."
"Yes, that makes it easier to want to suppress you. Though we never officially censor people for saying that."
You seem to value loyalty and generally want to be a tit-for-tat player + forgiveness. That makes sense, as does calibrating for the external environment in the case of PDs. You also view the intellectual commons as being increasingly corrupted by prejudiced discrimination.
This makes sense to me. This makes sense, but I think the thinking here is getting overwhelmed by the emotional strength of politicization. In general, it is easy to exaggerate how much defection is actually going on, and so give oneself an excuse for nursing wounds and grudges longer than absolutely necessary. I'm guilty of this and so speak from some experience. So I think there's an emotional mistake here. Perhaps fixed by seeking out "philosophical repose", a bit more detachment from reacting to the opinions and thoughts of others.
Intellectually, I think you are making an important mistake. Cooperation in PDs and moral philosophy are two different, though related, things. Welfarist utilitarianism does not require impartiality, but choosing those actions which maximize good consequences. Since your reason for rejecting welfsrism is because of the consequences of not punishing free riders, you have not yet rejected utilitarianism. You are rejecting impartiality as a necessary tenant of utilitarianism, but that is not the same thing as rejecting utilitarianism. You have to go one step further and give non-consequentialist reasons for rejecting them.
Hope that helps.
I think the OP's overarching concern is something like a narrow utilitarianism whose decision algorithm takes EV over only a limited number of horizons and decision sizes. There is unknown EV in exploring the world more personally and in reproducing knowledge and skills. My hunch is that such optimization of human life takes these different aspects at least multiplicatively.
Expected value calculations have limits for decisions which will affect your worldview, i.e. exploration. Or decisions along the axis of goods which you don't have a good model for, i.e. education.
I am noticing some interdisciplinary additions perhaps on the history/sociology side:
Theories of cultural progress and the sociology of scientific/innovative community.
The education of excellent people.
The history of innovative communities.
I'm curious, Jason, what the best arguments you have found so far about the relationship between long-term trends in population growth and progress.