- error_logic parentMemetic hazard.
- Revealing much?
- I actually really want to test your theory on myself. . . I wonder how I could best do that.
- It's not that easy. The deeper issue is plurality voting and duverger's law, with people being incentivized not to vote for something but to vote against a perceived evil, as that's what the campaigns get more traction with on the whole.
Plurality voting applied to the tragedy of the commons, i.e. the nash equilibrium decision matrix, results in the worst possibility if there's no basis for trust. If we could vote on the results of that matrix, by replacing {+1, 0, 0, 0...} voting with {+1, +0.5, -0.5, 0, 0, 0...} voting, things might actually improve with 3-4 viable, local parties, with smart selection of candidates actually representing districts constructively and campaigning accordingly.
But we don't have that. I fear its absence at all scales from local right on up to resolution of international conflict may end up being the Great Filter: The coordination problem of solving the tragedy of the commons in all its forms.
- It is telling that you considered their post to be about class warfare rather than different values.
The original focus of this thread was on technical precision vs. market efficiency, and how quality was sacrificed for faster conversion to sales.
That shift compromises products for everyone by creating a race to the bottom toward the minimum viable product and safety standards. When the consequences eventually hit, the aggregate responsibility and emergent effects lose direct attribution...but they exist all the same.
- Harm to the creators is eventual harm to the users if it results in some of the creators they enjoyed watching no longer being sustainable.
- You're underestimating how much the media landscape has changed, and the groundwork being laid even within the states themselves.
- > The US is not a one party state so its direction on these questions may be unclear for a while, but I think I know how Trump, Gabbard, Rubio etc. will answer that question as the working class very much put them in office
Endless misdirection of targeted greedy promises and opportunism did. The coins launched right before the election blew through the emoluments clause, and the tweet threatening removal of funding from universities with "illegal" protests is targeting the first amendment along with news organizations that are feeling the pressure.
The opposition will be but a token, and the bargaining power of the average person is the ultimate target for destruction.
- Ranked choice for single-seat elections can create situations where your ballot backfires, which is why it has been tried and rolled back. It works for proportional representation, but then you've got people divided ideologically rather than by region and their local communities.
The divide by ideology (proportional), or into "safe" one-party states and "battleground" states (plurality in the US) is the biggest issue, the two parts of the human experience losing touch with why the contrasting values exist in the first place.
That said, good point on the issue of the size limitation on the House.
- When the only perceived means of winning is making others lose, most people are going to lose.
The US should never have used plurality voting. It functions as the inputs to the Nash Equilibria decision matrix, our individual votes being against a perceived evil rather than for a value which supports civilization.
If instead of {+1, 0, 0, 0...} we used {+1, +0.5, -0.5, 0, 0, 0...} with each non-zero value used at most once and without duplication of candidate, we would be able to vote for the outputs of the decision matrix--our combined decision--and avoid the tragedy of the commons. I believe the coordination problem is the Great Filter, and going interplanetary won't solve the underlying math of shooting first being incentivized by winner-take-all, and the risk of mutually assured destruction.
The Partial Vote system as I call it would still be one voter one vote, it would just be easier to express it in separate components rather than listing all permutations.
Edit: Also, try applying ranked choice to a nash equilibrium matrix. There are some pathological cases to using rankings for a single-seat (result) selection process, where a voter might have had a better result for them if they hadn't voted. That can't happen with the partial votes described above.
- That's a convenient narrative but it overlooks the desire to prevent normalization of hostile takeovers.
Russia tried to pretend that its satellite states and NATO were similar arrangements (with the latter thus being under US control), because that would make it seem like they were on even ground.
To the extent it ends up being true, it will be due to Russia's influence (conveniently allied with others' authoritarian tendencies).
- Voting within the plurality system gave voters access only to the inputs of the Nash Equilibrium decision matrix, not the outputs. All it took was everyone being focused on winning by making the other side lose, and suddenly "we" all lose.
If instead we voted with permutations of {+1, +0.5, -0.5} assigned to a single combination of up to 3 candidates without duplication of score or candidate, we would be voting for the outcome of the decision matrix and avoiding the tragedy of the commons.
But we didn't, and won't, so we brave the new world of tragically aligned AGI known as government. If the pattern isn't recognized, real AGI (rather than the metaphor of government) would definitely learn from it and wipe out humanity at this rate.
- Doing this while the runtime learning is not yet developed means unleashing the equivalent of something between a toddler and young adult without the ability to progress through those stages before potentially causing harm.
Though as someone with a very anti-brainwashing upbringing (no political biasing, just politeness and correctness reinforcement) I can say that even with amazing conditions of being wanted and loved, an agent could develop such painful shame as to be dangerous and may or may not grow out of that as I did, even with such mechanisms to do so.
- Not unaccountable, just requiring the cooperation of multiple branches to remove.
Cooperation which has been deemed too transparent, too vulnerable to actually caring about what is being destroyed.
- Reminds me of wearing non-prescription sunglasses despite having myopia. It feels like the blurring of the world is due to the glasses, even though they're actually only blocking some of the light rather than distorting it.
- This ties in with something that took me far too long to recognize: Trust has two pillars.
One pillar is alignment of values, and therefore intent. The other pillar is competence.
These are the same issues faced by AI development, as well as representative government, or anything regulating a dynamic with competing elements or agents.
Yet our plurality voting system would be insufficient even to keep a car on the road and driving within the speed requirements. If only the founding fathers had recognized the need to have more information included in ballots so that negative campaigning wasn't as effective if not more effective than positive.
If we voted with {+1, +0.5, -0.5, 0, 0, 0...} weights, without duplication of non-zero values, the smartest, most constructive candidates would have a better chance. Each district would have its own blend of 3-4 viable parties, and the nation would be all the healthier for it. (Side note: Yes, this is still one person one vote--you could imagine voting with a single checkbox for a single permutation of all possible assignments of the scores, as an intermediate form.)
Back to your point, though: Yes, incompetence and malice can have the same effect in the short term. The long term is what determines the difference, both in effect and our responses to it.
- If you think Trump is actually in charge when he's signing all those executive orders being handed to him and--
Anyway, he's not the real power, here.
- Or if a government funding bill threatens it.
- It was a move by the political parties to campaign on social wedge issues and ignore economic ones.
- The reason it's defensible is that now checks and balances are gone because there aren't even token checks/balances from partisanship--the remaining functions of government are controlled by a single party, purging anyone who isn't loyal and willing to do whatever they deem justified.
They're paving a road to hell.
- Trump was surrounded by establishment Republicans last time.
This time no checks and balances exist within the administration, and the supreme court has been turned.
I wish I could laugh.
- Some people form a belief and then look for evidence to support it, others look at the evidence and check for inconsistencies before getting attached to a belief. "Nobody" wants Trump to be Hitler, they're observing parallels which you have rejected because of your desired beliefs.
- The entire government was intended to have 3 competing branches keeping each other's desire for power balanced against one another.
Unfortunately, Duverger's Law (splitting votes results in your least favorite candidate winning) made it so that there were only two competing parties, each able to most effectively campaign by sabotaging the other. This kept going until one secured control over every branch, and their masters strong-armed enough support from the other party to finish the job against the protests of a few holdouts.
The founding fathers didn't have the math to understand game theory, nash equilibria, and the tragedy of the commons. They didn't know that plurality voting applied to the prisoner's dilemma would result in the worst suffering outcome for both/all participants.
If instead of voting for one candidate ({+1, 0, 0, ...}) we had used partial votes ({+1, +0.5, -0.5, 0, 0, ...} without repeating candidates or scores) with limited expressiveness (to preserve partisanship rather than creating a purity test like China's approval system creates) we could vote for the output of the decision matrix rather than just the blind, selfish inputs. This would prevent the states from being carved up into two parties, instead having 3-4 local parties available to represent each state more accurately and intelligently.
The benefits to representation, cooperation, constructiveness, and intelligence (creating win-win outcomes) would have been enormous. It would've meant far more proactive handling of long-term issues rather than short-term gains. Yet here we are.
What made America great was open, honest, constructive competition made possible by opportunity. What we face now is the destruction of competition itself, driving what remains underground, set to emerge in catastrophically destructive form.
- Seemingly tiny, inconsequential stories like this can add up.
This sends a signal, and could hint at things to come.
- The discrediting is of the inevitability of its all-encompassing effects. It can be present without needing to be defended or prevent the Alpha from caring for its young.
- The thing is that when someone has to work hard to seem Alpha they are instead revealing their insecurity--the need to compensate to hide vulnerability.
Some people play into that game, others see through it.
- In my experience it's not even dismissing the humanity of others, it's recognizing their own minds following similar patterns.
In my youth I lacked the confidence to speak without a sentence "pre-written" in my mind and would stall out if I ran out of written material. It caused delays in conversation and lagging sometimes minutes behind the chatter of peers.
Since I've gained more experience and confidence in adulthood I can talk normally and trust that the sentence will "work itself out" but it seems like most people gloss over that implicit trust in their own impulses. It really gets in the way to be too self-conscious so I can understand it being something most people would benefit from being able to ignore...selfishly, at least. Lots of stupidity from people not thinking through the cumulative/collective effects of their actions if everyone follows the same patterns, though.
- A lot of that is provided by multi-modality including feedback from the body and interacting with objects and people with more than just the words. That expands the context of a human's experiences dramatically compared to just reading books.
Plus even when humans are reading books a mental image of what's going on in the story is common. Not everyone has that, but it shows how much a basic LLM lacks and multi-modal would add.
Now the real question to my mind is whether we can train models with actual empathy to learn from the experiences of other people without having to go through the experience directly. Doing so would put them above many individuals' understanding already. . .
- Indeed, some of us are more willing to believe ourselves somehow special and block out our own irrationalities and missteps.
There is a deep need in some people to ignore their own flaws so they can present themselves as more competent. More reasonably, people try to have a thought ready before starting to talk, or will stop and think again if they notice a contradiction in what they're saying.
Other people will keep right on going and double down if they've made a mistake, refusing to acknowledge the opportunity for learning and blocking out inconvenient contradiction.
Interestingly this is itself quite relevant to the AI alignment problem. Competence requires being able to accurately reflect [on] the patterns, whereas goal-seeking and morality require ignoring some options as costly/dangerous distractions--but not to the point of incompetence. Balancing the two is tricky, and neither people nor governments have solved this universally, let alone an AI.
- A walled garden can protect, or it can enslave. Eye of the beholder. This thread was about creating a walled garden by downranking external links.