41–50 of 57 posts
I can't stand slatestarcodex or lesswrong. They're not INTP but try really hard to be. And MBPI--because it's based on field observations in the 1910's--is the least politically correct typology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems to me that the ultimate point of this essay is the exact opposite of that.
Uhm, no: The piece claims we are subjected to inhumane incentives set by competition for resources (rather than by corrupted individuals and groups who have become too cozy in their armchairs). It claims that only centralized control by an “unincentivized incentivizer” can prevent Molochian systems from sliding into degenerate chaos, without really specifying what that is. I think the idea that a centralized solution…
I don’t know if I find this to be a sane suggestion, but it doesn’t seem to resemble what you’re saying.
Can I get a quick summary? By the way, does anyone know and use automatic summary plug-ins?
I might have misunderstood it when I read it (and it has been a while), but I thought the general idea was about shitty Nash equilibria. So far capitalism has driven moral progress and increased standards of living, but maybe we'd be wrong to trust it forever. If the logical end result of following progress is us innovating ourselves out of existence (AI, nuclear weapons, whatever) then we might need to take drastic…
If you think there’s a “we” that could make such decisions then you’ve either missed, or are not addressing, the point of the essay.
I can't stand slatestarcodex or lesswrong. They're not INTP but try really hard to be. And MBPI--because it's based on field observations in the 1910's--is the least politically correct typology.
Can you explain why you brought MBTI into this (it has nothing to do directly with the linked essay)?
2. But because this is HN, SOMEONE is going to say that MB is pseudoscience.
3. So I needed to premptively respond to the would-be smart alec.
This is a great essay. It's lengthy but it uses its bulk to great effect. It may be the best articulation I have seen of the Christian idea that the world is fallen. And yes, when we say that, this is what we mean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then surely you understand that the world cannot be non-fallen. Where is your deity in all this?
You're misunderstanding the entire point of Christianity, in the interest, perhaps, of a snarky quote? In Christianity, the world will always be fallen, sure. The whole point is that it is. The non-fallen place is heaven- that's where "our diety" is: bringing those who'd actually want to be there to Heaven. What we do in the meantime is try to make the world as less-bad as possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're misunderstanding the entire point of Christianity, in the interest, perhaps, of a snarky quote? In Christianity, the world will always be fallen, sure. The whole point is that it is. The non-fallen place is heaven- that's where "our diety" is: bringing those who'd actually want to be there to Heaven. What we do in the meantime is try to make the world as less-bad as possible.
Ah. Could you show me where in your holy texts this is explained?
For the world being fallen: "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned." (Romans 5:12) "Cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground..." (Genesis 3:17b-19a)
Our mission on Earth: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Charity Note that most of these quotes are very often used (and quotes here) in such a way that it wouldn't even be sustainable to survive and continue giving. You have to use your brain, even with Biblical commands, in order to carry them out it seems.
Take note here that I don't even think any of this is necessarily moral or a good idea. But it's easy to find!
This was a mostly entertaining read, if a bit all over the place. I do have one point to offer -- I noticed this article quotes liberally from Bostrom, Nick, but misses another thinker who has relevant ideas about avoiding what this author refers to as "multipolar traps" -- Ostrom, Elinor. I recommend those who are interested in resources for the fight against Moloch to look into her book Governing the Commons, as sh…
I will also add Le Guin's "A non-Euclidean view of California as a cold place to be" as the spiritual complement of Ostrom's mathematics and science.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seconded. This essay made me re-think what our problems are and what kind of dynamics those problems exhibit.
I feel the same way about the Inadequate Equilibria book https://equilibriabook.com/toc/ (free-to-read). In many ways, it's a different look into the very same problems, with more depth and less egregore/meme engineering.
Mind you, I have never found Yudkowsky's thought anything but imprecise and wandering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uhm, no: The piece claims we are subjected to inhumane incentives set by competition for resources (rather than by corrupted individuals and groups who have become too cozy in their armchairs). It claims that only centralized control by an “unincentivized incentivizer” can prevent Molochian systems from sliding into degenerate chaos, without really specifying what that is. I think the idea that a centralized solution…
It specifies exactly what the solution is: bringing about the singularity in a deliberate fashion that ensures the resulting superhuman AI is on our side. I’m short, we need to create a loving god. I don’t know if I find this to be a sane suggestion, but it doesn’t seem to resemble what you’re saying.