Monday, May 17, 2021

Name Rectification: Liberal vs. Conservative

The liberal personality is said to have high O and the conservative to have high C. This isn't right. A healthy human has high O and high C. Choosing to be lazy is much easier than choosing to stop being lazy. 

The liberal has crippling mutations in their C genes, the conservative has crippling mutations in their O genes. They absolutely should not be allowed to tell anyone else what to do. E.g. voting is right out.

Can't Put It Down

"Do not call up what you can't put down," functionally cashes out to, "Do not call up." 

The only reason to call up something is when it's more powerful than you are. If it's less powerful, then you can do the thing yourself. If it's more powerful, you will not be able to put it down.

Re-Evaluate Culture From First Principles: A How Not-To

"This is good example of how we really need to back up and re-evaluate what we want our culture to be like from first principles"

This guy has no idea what [first principles] means and if you told him he would be thoroughly unwilling to do the work. 

Tell: "our" culture. Naturally he in fact means "your" culture. He wants to impose his own culture on a wider country. (Digression: isn't willing to use conquest to do so.) 

Earlier tell: "need". An attempt to generate urgency, because the topic itself inspires no urgency. Acting exactly like a median American and while pretending to say median Americana is wrong. Anyway if a culture needs an ICU it's already too late. There is no such thing as urgent engineering.

Exactly what they teach in American schools: seeming to question, without challenging anything. Cope. Popularity contest. 

The rest of the thread flagrantly confirms the original perception.

"have a seat at the table about what the hell we're going to do about this"
You're not going to do anything about it. If you could have you already would have. You're not going to address your own powerlessness, so it will remain. 'Seat at the table' apparently refers to twitter likes.

"pro-humanity position"
Humanists gonna hume. 'These other humanists are huming harder than we are and that's bad.' Yeah good luck with that.

Saturday, May 15, 2021

AI Risk is Narcissism

AI can absolutely steal Yudkowsky's job, and he doesn't have any backup options. To him this fearsome possibility feels like the end of the world. If your only marketable attribute is your intelligence, then artificial intelligence is a direct competitor.

The intuitive structure isn't wrong, but the narcissist interprets risk to the self as risk to the species, because narcissists are solipsists. To Yudkowsky, existential risks to Yudkowsky are interpreted as existential risk to everything. 

Also narcissists are always histrionic. He can always get a job digging ditches or whatever. He wouldn't really instantly die. Further, we've encountered the Luddite fallacy in a new fancy clever version. In reality AI would reduce his salary somewhat, rather than making him wholly redundant, because brains are radically optimized for construction and operation expenses. Maybe AI will be competitive when two idiots can, by themselves, make a self-maintaining computer out of corn and beans.

More fun with narcissism: when Yud says the AI could do anything, he's saying a smart machine can do anything, which implies a smart person (such as Yud) can do anything too, given enough time. "If only I could get paid more and not have to spend time safing AI!" Right? Right. 

Pretending you find the AI risk scenarios believable is mainly about signalling that you think intelligence is important in the sense of drawing large salaries.

Machiavellian High IQ

The person I reveal on my blog would obviously not win an election.

In real life I've been spontaneously pressured to take on leadership positions, because I made my mask too well. I can mostly explain what I've done if you want to make such a mask yourself. However, you will find that responsibility is not worth the offered bid in a Fascist country. Also if you use my mask blueprint you'll probably get annoying sticky fans the same way I do. ("We're friends, right?" No.)

A very high IQ leader has a problem: the stuff they want to do makes no sense to their very average IQ employees. The solution is Machiavellianism. Figure out what they need to do, and then figure out what weirdo bullshit you need to say such that they'll do it. They're dumb, so they make mistakes, so you manipulate them into making the mistakes that are accidentally the right thing to do. 

But you're smart, so you figured this out on your own. If you want to lead someone who can't fathom anyone with an IQ higher than 120, then pretend to be someone with an IQ of 120. Sinple. "What would brain-damage Jesus do?" 

Indeed you'll be realer than real. Truth is stranger than fiction. Remember how a man was voted woman of the year by TIME? A genius can be a midwit even better than a midwit can. You can perfectly match the moron's perception of a midwit in a way the real midwit can't quite manage. They'll love you for the act of relieving their cognitive dissonance alone. Forgive you practically anything if you go full pandering.

It would be more efficient to have a fully authoritarian [obey without question] structure, but those things are deprecated nowadays, so leadership has a bunch of hassle involved.

There are two reasonable conclusions. One: I am unique. Two: I am not unique. Either I'm some sort of world-striding genius, or there are others who are good at manipulation. I'm not particularly fussed about which conclusion you pick. Though notice that USG often does exactly what I would have done were I sadistic, amoral, and had a herd of cats to manage.

Can Bezos buy America?

More generally, is America for sale?

USG has earnings of some trillions of dollars. At a typical P/E ratio of 20, this means USG is worth some hundreds of trillions of dollars, and America as a whole is worth half a quadrillion.

Does Bezos have a quadrillion dollars?

You probably couldn't buy America directly. Maybe you could trigger a referendum? I dunno. It's hard to see what would stop a quadrillionaire from buying a military coup or suchlike, though. They could fund their own spy agency (staffed with competence) to figure out exactly who would stop them, and then have them Alex Jones'd or Epstein'd. Would it take so long they would have successor problems? 

If you have enough money you can even buy a test coup, see what goes wrong, and specifically address the issues for the next coup. Having enough money to buy enough prototypes is merely a matter of accounting and keeping costs down.

Friday, May 14, 2021

State Capacity vs. Anglo Ruling Style

America has lots of State capacity, but doesn't like to use it since it risks the responsibility-laundering scheme. 

E.g. remember the lite-brites in Boston? They immediately shut down the whole city. It's not that they can't shut cities down at will, they merely choose not to. Epstein got whacked in broad daylight. You think they can't weld some doors shut and make the press look the other way?

It's gauche. Anglos are supposed to make you think it was your own idea. They don't tell you what to do directly, like some filthy peasant boss. E.g. you're supposed to come up with the idea of stealing the election on your own, not have to be told what and how to do it during a witching-hour Zoom call. There's a bit of a competition to see who can use the most scapegoats and cutouts. It's very hard to change your class in America, but using direct instruction instead of manipulation is a great way to get booted from high society. Everyone will turn on you instantly.

By contrast, an evolutionary or emergent system would sometimes be brilliant, and sometimes forget to whack key witnesses, blatantly admit to forging votes, etc. Evolution does not produce a uniform grey Communist malaise.

Why Did Science Die in Specifically the 70s?

Duh, of course science died in the early 70s. That's when the Old Left was ousted by the New Left, in other words when pre-war non-communist trained administrators were replaced by properly post-war communist administrators. 

Science was mortally wounded by nationalization in 1945, but nevertheless for a time universities contained many pre-war scientists and thus there was a bunch of inertia. The 70s is rather awkward for timing, though. 

Someone who got their doctorate in 1945 can easily be expected to stay in the system until the mid-80s, so it's not age-related selection. Also, due to old_dogs/new_tricks, these prewar doctorates should have trained more prewar doctorates, with only minor contamination driven primarily by (corrupt) innovation. Science should have died relatively slowly.

On the other hand, most discovery work is done in your 20s and 30s, meaning science should have died by the mid-60s at the latest.

Instead, it was an old_dogs kind of situation, except a bunch of political entrepreneurs recognized the new regimes for the communist-safe space it was, and pressure rapidly built up until they simply launched the revolution. Society evolves faster when it's smart and rich. They recognize the Nash equilibrium sooner.
The revolution worked, because they weren't wrong about making the world safe for communism. By the early 70s they consolidated their position, forced the scientific community to fall in line, and thoroughly cremated the corpse of free discovery.

Prewar scientists were already leftist, and thus politicized, but they had priorities other than politics. Like a well-rounded human being or something silly like that. American is totalitarian, so we can't have that, now can we? 

P.S. Nobody should getting married and the welfare rolls should be at least three times bigger than they in fact are, except inertia. The lower classes are poor and dumb and recognize the Nash equilibrium super slowly. Being a net taxpayer is a sucker's game in modern America, but luckily for USG America has always been stuffed to the brim with suckers.

On the downside, most forms of net tax consumer are also suckers' games.