I'm not sure what you mean by 'astronomical waste or astronomical suffering'. Like, you are writing that everything forever is status games, ok, sure, but then you can't turn around and appeal to a universal concept of suffering/waste, right?
Whatever you are worried about is just like Gandhi worrying about being too concerned with cattle, plus x years, yeah? And even if you've lucked into a non status games morality such that you can perceive 'Genuine Waste' or what have you...surely by your own logic, we who are reading this are incapable of understanding, aside from in terms of status games.
I've been saying this for years. EMH is just sour grapes, it is exactly like all those news stories about how people who won the lottery don't enjoy their money.
Whenever there is a thing that people can do, and some don't, a demand exists for stories that tell them that they are wise, even heroic, for not doing the thing. Arguments are Soldiers, Beware One Sided Tradeoffs, all those articles sort of gesture at this. That demand will be met because making up a lie is easy and people like upvotes.
EMH is a complicated way to say 'your decision to do nothing was the best one.', even when that manifestly isn't true. Try and write down what people will say before them 'I make 70-200% without risk in 2 months' and see if you get bingo. 'The House Always Wins' is your free middle square.
This all 'sounds', I dunno, kind of routine? Like, weird terminology aside, they talked to one another a bunch, then ran out of money and closed down, yeah? And the Zoe stuff boils down to 'we hired an actress but we are not an acting troupe so after a while she didn't have anything to do, felt useless and bailed'.
I mean, did anything 'real' come out of Leverage? I don't want to misunderstand here. This was a bunch of talk about demons and energies and other gibberish, but ultimately it is just 'a bunch of people got together and burned through some money', right?
I dunno, good on em for getting someone to pay them in the first place, I guess. Talking people into writing the big checks is a big deal skill. Maybe coach that.
My pick for 'you must experience', or, 'trust me on the sunscreen' in terms of media, is the old British comedy show 'Yes Minister'. Watching it nowadays is an eerie experience, and, at least in my case, helped me shed illusions of safety and competence like nothing else.
The only evils that beset us are those that we create, but that does not make them imaginary. To quote the antag from Bad Boys 2 "This is a stupid problem to have, but it is nonetheless a problem."
I dunno, I think you had the right of it when you mentioned that the myth of the myth is politically convenient. Like, you see this everywhere. "You didn't build that", etc.
If you grant that anyone, anywhere, did anything, then you are, in the Laws of Jante style, insulting other people by implying that they, for not doing that thing, are lesser. That's a vote/support loser. So instead you get 'Hidden Figures' style conspiratorial thinking, where any achievement ascribed to a person is really the work of other exploited people, ideally nameless ones onto whom the people you are trying to grift can project themselves.
Depending on the politics of the person in question, sometimes you get a backhanded admission that maybe they had something to do with their achievements, but it will always be presented as being dwarfed by the contributions of the nameless anonymous audience standins.
This all feels so abstract. Like, what have we lost by having too much faith in the PMK article? If I buy what you are pitching, what action should I take to more properly examine 'multi-principal/multi-agent AI'? What are you looking for here?
Bummer.
The article about Slack is really good, thanks for linking.
You are broadly correct, in my eyes, but it is hard to imagine anyone far enough along in life that they are browsing random sites like this one not having taken a stance on this question, yeah? Like, this is a switch that gets flipped turbo early along in life, and never revisited.
Those whose stances are in agreement just nod along, those whose stances are opposed reject your argument for all the reasons that you cited (it's a narcissistic injury, etc).
I dunno, I don't think it can hurt, but I doubt your message finds the ear of anyone who needs to hear it.