Anyone have any ideas on how Hofstadter’s law could be used for some really, really exploitable anthropic computing? Basically, assuming that any worlds that would violate Hofstadter’s law too egregiously fail to realize because they’re swallowed by paradoxes, how could one use this to weed out less desirable outcomes? And what would be reasonable preconditions for it; obviously it only impacts things you’re doing yourself or in some other way personally involved-in-slash-responsible-for, but what else?
Anonymous asked: "alison and i are both girls these days, so gay feels like a bit of a weird term" ? that seems like exactly the situation that word was meant to describe?
i mean, technically the term applies to girls maybe, but it sure isn’t the central example
I’m firmly of the “gay means homosexuality in general” camp because it means that people can be like “are you an LGBTAQ person?” and I can be like “yes” and they’ll be like “okay which one of them?” and I can be like “what do you mean which one” and that’s good.
It’s great how “I don’t trust the government further than I could throw it” almost literally means “My trust in the government is proportional to my ability to overthrow it if it becomes harmful”.
Alternatively: “My trust in the government is proportional to my ability to get the hell out of there if it becomes harmful”
socialjusticemunchkin asked: Hi! I noticed your post on pop radicalism and it really resonated; as it happens I'm exactly the kind of a person who actually tries to build and test some alternate institutions and systems. I also really like things that *seem* like hyperbole but I put my money where my mouth is and thus I have no choice but to actually live it and be the change I want to see instead of just talking about it. As a result I thought introducing myself a bit more personally might be a high-EV decision for both :3
I like where you’re headed with this. Would you mind telling me about some of your alternate institutions?
By EV, you mean expected value, right? I was thinking electron-volts at first, and it took me a few minutes to come up with something that makes a little more sense. :-)
Yes, expected value.
I’m basically working on stuff to substitute the state where it fails to serve the people it claims to serve.
I’ve seen firsthand the failures of the traditional welfare state, and creating some kind of mutual economic security mechanisms to replace its humiliating means-tested benefit schemes would be a really big deal. I don’t trust the state to handle the upcoming issues with automation-induced unemployment in any reasonable way, so I obviously must do it myself, and the faster I get it going the better prepared it will be.
Traditional welfare has a really big problem with incentives, structural unemployment, lack of dignity and feeling of self-determination etc.; traditional religions and extended families demand comformity far in excess of what’s reasonable, and restrict entry and exit in ways that expose people to risks of abuse; traditional workplaces have no place for people whose productivity isn’t high enough. Hacking that into something that can credibly guarantee people their basic needs, a sense of dignity and belonging, and opportunities for growing stronger and more productive, without imposing burdens to dogma, authorities etc. while still solving the problem of incentives would be very useful.
While I obviously don’t know what form it would ultimately take, I think it could be visualized as a decentralized network of small communes and individuals sharing common ideals; that unconditionally help other members but expect a reasonable contribution in return (and have some ways to enforce that if mutual solidarity is broken), while running their own businesses and offering other opportunities for contributing internally that aren’t restricted by the broken rules of state bureaucracies; and the system is backed by capital in minifacturing equipment and investments to supply people those basic needs as cheaply as possible and provide a stable source of income for things that need to be bought from the markets. And that system is enclosed within a shell of a corporation, a co-operative, or whatever is needed to interface the internals with the external society while minimizing the burdens of taxation etc. and giving it some high-level coordination mechanisms wherever those are needed. Solidarity, Inc. or something like that. At least this describes the general weirdness-space where I’m searching for solutions.
In more general terms, I expect it to require a combination of social engineering, business, and technology to create a system where incentives (when considering the known quirks of human psychology) are aligned towards stability, growth and co-operation.
David Friedman’s Machinery of Freedom pointed out that most workers could afford to simply buy out owners in a few years of sustained effort (in reality it wouldn’t be that mathematically neat as the increased demand for capital would drive prices up, further enrichen the initial owners, and possibly loop back into raising the prices even more); and after I got over the despair of “why the fuck has everyone on the left been ignoring this incredibly obvious solution forever just because it doesn’t look like the revolution they are looking for” I decided that I’m going to build something to solve the problem of people sitting on their asses, voting, and whining, instead of actually preparing for the post-labor future.
There’s the obvious problem of people barely able to provide for themselves even now, and who definitely can’t afford to invest, and hacking that is important as well. Regular forms of work severely restrict the ways people can create value to capture, and a lot of people are suffering from chronic hypo-opportunititis. An internal system without taxes, minimum wages, psychologically damaging environments etc. but instead an universal atmosphere of growing stronger and contributing in some way, even if the outside economy doesn’t appreciate it, would probably alleviate those issues substantially. Fostering social bonds makes it easier to support those who need it without having those who support them feel resentment towards “moochers”. Easy access to credit would help with the current situation where poor people can get desperate from even small debts because they can’t ever actually pay them, and if the system is built on a strong base of capital it can afford to absorb some inefficiencies to be more humane.
But what do the monetary contributors get from this? I’ve identified some interesting loopholes in the tax and pension laws of Finland which basically allow anyone to boost their wages 25% at the price of becoming ineligible for pensions (nobody born after 1980 is ever going to get any pensions anyway so it’s practically free), with some perfectly legal accounting tricks. Building a system to consistently deliver those returns would be worth solid cash, and I’m expecting a lot of countries and economic systems to have similar unexpected sources of exploitability hidden somewhere. Then there’s the opportunity of providing bureaucracy-resistant safety nets which many people with irregular incomes would probably gladly take. Then there’s pure altruism, community, being involved in a movement that’s going to Solve big structural problems instead of just talking about how they will be solved once idea X is pushed through the democratic political machinery or enforced with a revolution (I’m totally going to try to discredit the “our revolutionary discussion club celebrates its 50th anniversary of never getting shit done” style of activism), and the investment base I’m expecting to build (with the implication that people who start contributing early will get a bigger slice of the pie later once their jobs get automated away and they turn into recipients).
Basically, libertarians say that “the free market will figure out some way to make the poor not starve” and leftists protest that “it hasn’t happened yet, how on earth would it happen then” and here I am, being the free-market messiah rejecting the traditional political tug-of-war and pushing forward an extraordinary effort on the question of “how do we make it so that poor people don’t starve even if states fail and utopian revolutions fizzle out”. (It was really weird to realize that I was headed straight towards the magical three question marks between “1. Free markets” and “3. Poverty and destitution are solved” without consciously thinking of it that way; all I wanted to do was to do better than the government.) I’ve literally had an anarchist tell me that if my plans succeed history will probably remember me as an anarcho-capitalist (I don’t do labels. Boxes don’t work and words don’t feed people. All I care about is results.) and that they’re going to help me with making that happen anyway. Weird things happen around me.
Then I’m also the person who made the system in Finland de facto recognize that gender is self-determined when it comes to conscription and thus a person who’s legally male can still be exempt if they consistently insist that it’s simply not true, without needing any official papers “proving” it; and the person who forced the system to allow non-binary people to change their legal gender without pretending to be the other binary option.
And then there’s my practical transhumanism. Actually taking control of my body and brain to do whatever I want (at least within my financial and technological constraints). When someone says “nice body” I could honestly answer “thanks, I made it myself”. And I’m totally in favor of eliminating gender as we know it, and actually working towards it. If I ever had children I’d put them on puberty blockers until they could give informed consent to a puberty of their own choosing, medically controlled to produce exactly the desired results regardless of what they are. Because I’m not going to have children, I’m just going to show the world that there are options and that being restricted to two boxes shows an absurd lack of imagination.
(Also, you mentioned your disappointment with people who share your political philosophy; and I’d be interested in hearing out what it actually is because it’s not obvious. Of course, I’m having some predictions because I always try to predict and model most things, but I’d like to get some feedback on my calibration.)
I didn’t quite understand it before I visited SF but in Finland there’s this strange atmosphere of clean oppressiveness and control, and upon my return it hit like a barrel of intangible psychological bricks.
The State owns you. You don’t belong to yourself. You belong to everyone else. They decide. The state tracks you from cradle to grave. You’re a number. Your gender is hard-coded into the number. The State will hurt you. It only does it because it loves you. The State will take care of you. The State knows better than you do. Don’t try to fight it. The State reigns supreme. The State does whatever the fuck it wants and gets away with it. They will support it anyway. They understand that everyone belongs to everyone and that’s why you can’t decide anything for yourself. Vox populi, vox dei. You are not an adult. You can’t choose for yourself. Live a DIN-standardized life. The only other option is the squalor of 19th century industrial slums. Do you want the squalor of 19th century industrial slums? Then shut the fuck up and accept the oppression. There are no other choices. Any attempt to create other choices will be destroyed. Submit or be destroyed. Submit and be ground down anyway because you’re too young, too poor, too strange.
In SF things felt “out of control” in some really strange, subtle backgroundish way. The visa system emphasizes that people regularly overstay their visas and they only get in trouble for it if they’re caught. The rules for changing one’s name are “just use it” instead of several pages of strict regulations. Even the regulations, where they showed up, felt like attempts to impose some degree of control onto something that is inherently out of control, instead of the inherent structure of society outside which nothing is allowed to happen. In Finland I feel safe and controlled, afraid to be the nail that sticks out because the welfare statism has been so thoroughly internalized that I constantly feel like someone is watching even when nobody is. In SF I feel alive.
The US federal government feels like an empire that loots and oppresses people to enrichen its cronies and prop up its mechanisms of violence, but ultimately is something “over there”, while nordic welfare corporatism feels like an entire machine made of paper in which people are just tiny cogs running the faceless monstrosity in its uncaring emergent abominableness. The US government tries to control life. In Finland the corporatist system has succeeded in it. Or at least that’s what it feels like. In Finland I constantly have to fight some subconscious instinct not to deviate from the system’s scripts, not to rock the boat, not to try to crawl out of the bucket. Afraid of the mallet that isn’t really there. Well, not always because often it actually really is there, just quite a lot of the time.
That’s probably why I get along so well with both anarchists and libertarians despite them otherwise not getting along with each other at all. Among them I can feel like I’m sane, safe from the constant gaslighting about the way the welfare state only has the best interests of its citizens at heart and surely it can’t be that bad and the people who claim it is that bad are just lying and whining and probably trying to grab too much for themselves. Safe from the cultists chanting “de-mo-kra-si de-mo-kra-si” and insisting that I join them in their strange rituals of putting pieces of paper in boxes and pretending that it absolves the system and the people composing it of all their sins. Safe from the people who think that everything must be strictly controlled, regulated, regimented, and standardized just so that it is. Safe from the people who think that nobody must have any alternative, that even the idea of people living on an artificial island somewhere without bothering anyone else is such an aberration that it simply Must Not Be Allowed. Safe from the people on disguised welfare, who loathe those who lack that privilege and have instead fallen onto overt welfare. Safe from the people who consider society’s most important function to be the punishment of those who do “wrong” according to the will of the majority, without regard for the consequences.
That hobo in a Ron Paul t-shirt, raving about some imaginary rugged individualism only he can perceive, may be utterly disgusting and otherwise several times detached from reality, but he is also a person who knows what’s really lurking behind the smiles of the scary socialdemocrats of Finnsmouth. Such people are rare and valuable and I treasure almost every single one of them, no matter how frustrating and fractally wrong and obnoxious they otherwise are. Because they understand.
Historically, people from [Redacted] have a habit of going to places that are this structured and controlled and systematised…
…And breaking them.
I don’t know if I totally agree with this, but the Law of Jante is relevant.
Yeah, fuck the Janteloven. (As someone who ended up in the same English class as my Danish peers while in the Danish public school nightmare system, I think I get to say this? The fact that they don’t have tracked math is also bad, but this was the most egregious instance.)
Yes, everyone gets to say “fuck Jantelagen” (or “fuck the Jantelag”; “the Jantelagen” is a “the the” form and is not allowed)
Robert Cialdini’s Wikipedia page says “He is best known for his book Influence“. Since its publication, he seems to have spent his time directing an institute to spread awareness of techniques for success and persuasion. At the risk of being a little too cynical – a guy knows the secrets of success, so he uses them to…write a book about the secrets of success? If I knew the secrets of success, you could bet I’d be doing much more interesting things with them. All the best people recommend Cialdini, and his research credentials are impeccable, but I can’t help wondering: if he’s so smart, why isn’t he God-Emperor?
Maybe he doesn’t want to? His book about the secrets of success appears to have been wildly successful, maybe he really likes studying that and spreading those ideas and living whatever private life he has.
I often get the impression from rationalists (most obviously Eliezer but Scott is up there too) that not only would they, personally, want to rule the world if only they could, but that anyone would do the same in the right position. As someone who, if appointed god emperor, would abdicate and get back to living his own life, I can’t help but wonder if this is more of a result of them being in somewhat of a social bubble or more of a typical mind fallacy type thing. I also have some concerns about the morality of wanting to be in charge of everyone, and with the political stances and approaches many of the same rationalists take, but I’m mostly just confused as to how someone could be this confused about people’s motivations.
(this is all setting aside the other obvious issue, which is that persuasion is not literal mind control and it’s dubious that the most persuasive person in the world, by virtue of that fact alone, would be guaranteed success of the kind Scott seems to be thinking of here).
That last paragraph x100. I’ve read Influence, it’s a good book, but Cialdini is up-front about the fact that nothing he describes is magic.
I often get the impression from rationalists (most obviously Eliezer but Scott is up there too) that not only would they, personally, want to rule the world if only they could, but that anyone would do the same in the right position.
True. I always get so baffled when someone has power and influence and only buys a yacht and a mansion and at most has wild and expensive sex parties. I literally can’t understand how a person who can get into such a position would only use that position in so boringly savanna ways, other than the system actually being mostly luck-based and rewarding fundamentally incompetent and/or only shallowly ambitious people who endlessly pursue lost causes simply to increase some arbitary high score.
You came here alone, through a small, glowing hole that doesn’t extend through the room behind it, echoing with impossible music. Hidden paths around every corner connect distant places, entangling an unearthly Space. We can retrieve information about each other such that when we first meet, our interactions will appear unnaturally forced into banding together and our dialogues reference things we shouldn’t know, like poorly-written stories created and spread by humble country folk. Some of us, though, are able to speak in very neat, florid, even versified lines, as if we had hours to make it up on paper before we said it. There are realms we don’t consider real, and we take people from them to perform for our strangely innocently unempathic whims. You never know when something you say will somehow offend another’s alien etiquette and bring down a mob of wrath as if you had broken a sworn oath. Art is admired above all else. Justice is demanded above all else. This is all a dream realm, structured entirely by the laws of the mind. Everything is made of language. Everything is brightly saturated with a full rainbow of colors in any direction. You signed a contract in order to exist.
