Wednesday, January 19, 2022

Diminishing Returns on IQ: Autonauts Example & Musings on IQ Evolution

Playing an alpha version, 21.2, Tito. The release version is plain bad, IMO.

It's a bit like Factorio except you can have a fully automated and developed base in an afternoon. Offers some interesting challenges...or would if bots were expensive. Instead you can automate bot production in like 20 minutes, and it's not like they cost power to maintain.

Because the programming language is rather restricted and bots can have at most 32 instructions, the game provides lots of interesting challenges related to trying to make a bot relatively intelligent without running out of memory. By default it doesn't even have a proper AND gate and you have to hack something in, which I find a satisfying puzzle. can just make more bots. They're cheap and power costs are negligible even when they aren't self-powering. Whatever interesting programming challenge there is, it's trivialized when you break it up into two bots. Anything that almost fits into 32 will trivially fit into 64, let alone 128. It takes far longer to try to fit it into 32 than to just build a new robot, even if you do it by hand instead of using the automation. 

I just do it anyway - it's a game after all, you're suppose to play it, not work it - but the challenge is entirely self-imposed. "What if they made this into an interesting game instead of polishing all the fun out? Let's play around in preparation for that." It's still an alpha, so technically it was, at the time, still possible...

I believe this is the basic reason that most animals don't get into runaway IQ evolution. 

Similarly, an alleged singularity computer would self-limit due to myriad factors long before it became infinitely intelligent, before it became transcendentally intelligent, or even all that exceptionally intelligent. (Indeed Descartes was right, so it would stop even before it became intelligent at all unless it was attached to a whole arbitrary laboratory/machine shop that could re-design and re-build its hardware.) No matter how smart a computer is, all it takes is one person who doesn't think it's in their best interests to keep it plugged in, and ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Animals in particular see the exact dilemma I see in Autonauts. Why bother making an Einstein squirrel when you can make two or three or fifty squirrels for the same price? Why bother figuring out the right solution in advance when you can try literally every solution just by being dumb, making mistakes, and stumbling into all of them? You have to choose the path that costs the least, and the diminishing returns on IQ investments are so harsh that the dumb path is cheaper. 

I'm firmly convinced human IQ is a liar-liar arms race. Pretty sure the oldest known fire isn't the oldest fire, and habilis became erectus exactly because they discovered fire. (Or had it revealed to them.) After erectus, total ecological dominance was achieved. The only thing that can seriously threaten a grass monkey is bad mutations or other humans. Further, the dire apes you spend all your time around are ones you're not allowed to kill. Sure you can try to kill the next tribe over but there's a distinctly limited supply of vulnerable neighbours. Which means: you need to lie, and defend yourself from lies.

This IQ ratchet is self-limited, because if your lie is too sophisticated it goes above your victim's head. The sweet spot seems to be around 25-30 points of IQ advantage. Plus you still get diminishing returns. No matter how cleverly you argue, you can't convince someone their children don't deserve to eat. "No, uh, getting food for my kids is the entire point of this interaction." Unless they manage to forget sanity, you'll be SOL no matter how many times you try that one.

Bonus diminishing returns round: now humans have a nice powerful general processing unit, they have to learn to use it. The whole point of a high IQ is to do things your genes don't know how to do, which means doing your own training. 

In other words, instead of seeing a local maximum at [just barely smart enough not to bite its own tail off] the grass monkey sees a local maximum at [just barely smart enough not to sell its own children for scrap metal].

Consciousness pre-exists evolution. Like sunlight and carbon, evolution simply harnesses it for its own purposes. Like sunlight and carbon, there are side-effects and compromises that have to be made. For example, humans don't like dying and thus don't like the [throw bodies at it] solution anymore. Unfortunately, thinking is expensive even if you're really smart, so there's a bit of a catch-22 there. Smart enough to work it's possible to be smart enough not to die, not smart enough to figure out how, not smart enough to work out they're not smart enough and need to accept the consequences.

Tuesday, January 18, 2022

Believing in Morality Creates Demons

The Aryan tradition is generally better than Christianity. As you would expect, what with being at least ten times as old. However, it has a distinctly Manichean obsession with identifying some part of Reality as irredeemable. Almost like Yeshua had a real point...which was, naturally, immediately missed. The Greeks had the giants in Tartarus, the Norse had Ymir, Czechs have Czernobog, the Babylonians had Tiamat... It's very consistent, which is a bit puzzling, since it doesn't work. 

The Dao is somewhat bipolar, yes. Everywhere it appears as two opposites. However, it's a mobius. They're both the Dao. 


Try some candidates:

Evil in the Christian sense doesn't exist. Their examples are either nonlocal and thus nonexistent, or mere examples of prudence. E.g, if hell exists, then getting condemned to hell is unwise. You're not being "selfless," you're being transcendentally selfish. Being actually selfless is both stupid and impossible. 

Disorder can't be bad. Total order is death and worse than death. Everything becomes frozen solid, incapable of moving. Hint: every physical particle exists by vibrating. Absolute zero isn't merely stillness, it is nonexistence. The so-called zero-point energy is the fact that to get a particle to go completely still you have to take its particle-ness away. Some motion simply isn't optional. 

Clearly if Creation is the holiest object, then Destruction must be the unholy? Excessive creation is destruction. The mobius strikes again.
Devils exist too. In this hypothetical, devils are the avatars of destruction. But destroying a devil must be bad, because destruction is bad. Which means devils are good. Which means destruction is good. Which means destroying a devil is good, which means...
Sol is hot. And that's good. Clearly, we must make him hotter, until we all broil, until the Earth evaporates, until there is no-one left to appreciate him. Or wait, no, the opposite of that moral imperative. How about never do that.
Impermanence is a blessing; your mistakes are forgiven, eventually, through destroying their consequences. 

I particularly enjoy the "negative emotions" one. What happens if you do not fear? Instead of being brave, you are reckless. You take lethal risks for no reason and die, unaware that you did anything wrong. Fear is not the mind-killer, is the body-saver. Congenital analgesia is a debilitating and deadly disease, and sufferers rarely make it to 20. If they don't feel pain how do they suffer? Well, they don't exist or soon won't, so the question is moot. What happens if you do not feel anger? If you are 0/7 on wrath? You're a perennial victim. A playground for parasites. The "negative" emotions are nothing more than perfectly rational responses to negative situations. They are truth, not bad. (As long as the situation is real, anyway.) Hate? What's wrong with hating things that want to harm you? If you have a habit of loving those who wish you harm...well, then I hope and pray you both get exactly what you're asking for.

What about my own personal bugbear, lies? If nothing was concealed, it would be impossible to reveal it. Omniscience is perfection is death and worse than death. To state omniscience is good is to say the revealed religions are inherently the worship of devils, because it requires the deities to have concealed the religion in the first place. Haha, oops. No, being concealed is merely the natural way of the world, and praise be. I merely suggest that you don't try to un-reveal that which is already revealed, nor to obstruct the revelation of a secret whose time has come. Even if you temporarily succeed, it is unlikely to work out for you in the long run.

What about death? I've mentioned it a few times in a negative sense. Refer back to creation/destruction. Life without the possibility of death wasn't life in the first place.

Believing in morality is false, and falsehood is a deadly sin. Believing in morality creates the very demons it tries to combat. You isolate some healthy part of yourself, and set it up as a scapegoat. You create conflict where no conflict needs to be. You try to cut it out. It is very confused, but out of necessity it fights back. "See! The dog bites when I kick it! It must have been evil all along." You try to cut it out even harder. 

If you succeed, you put something where it shouldn't be. (If you don't succeed you're doubly a chump.) You have condemned the righteous, to both your sorrows. You have created a demon.

Allegorically, you introduce oxygen into an anaerobic bacterial colony. It's not that oxygen is bad per se. It's not a devil. However, it's in the wrong place.
Having both is better than missing either. God's party is more glorious. Better for everyone to keep anaerobia and oxygen separate, that we may keep them both around.
The demon, this righteous energy placed in an unrighteous situation, is going to cause the very harms you were trying to prevent, and on top of this, the price you paid to create it will pain and weaken you.
Thus, don't believe in morality. Not morality per se, at least. (Something something mores norms normative etc.) It is ironic that hallucinating new divisions ends up uniting things which are better kept separate.

Because of the above considerations, I have difficulty giving a descriptive name for what devils are. They're anti-Dao, but that name goes clunk. They oppose Existence per se. They oppose consciousness per se. They're not khaos, which is the superposition of every possibility; they worship the absence of possibility, particularly their own possibility.

Devils are pitiful creatures, not some great and terrible adversary. They are avatars of failure in and of itself.

Certainly encountering one is never safe, but then that's exactly why they have to exist. Perfect safety see the pattern...worse than death. However, no matter how much suffering they inflict upon you, they are always inflicting worse suffering upon themselves. Allegorically, what if there was a child whose parents really shouldn't love them? That's a devil.

Dissonance, I suppose I could say. If we must be Manichean, then there is an inherent conflict between harmony and dissonance. The Dao inherently can't be dissonant with the Dao, by superdivine law. Existence is a great dance, and devils are the false steps and stumbling motions that simply don't fit with any part of the greater whole. They are the incarnations of unlikeability. 

If they are truly irredeemable, it is precisely and only because they aren't part of Reality. 

If a devil seems powerful to you, look again. Unlike all pro-Dao spirits, their only power is that granted to them by others. They have only kratia, no dunamis. You should not worship a devil unless you wish to fail, to suffer, and to never be seen again.

But, hey, if you do wish as much? You do you.

P.S. The Buddhists are a bit hard to pin down, but they have asuras. Sure they say everyone still in the cycle is doing it wrong, but look at how they say to behave toward them. Got some Satanism in there, which is pretty impressive for a dude who pre-dated Yeshua. 

The Hindus themselves seem to get it. Shiva and Kali are gods of destruction, yes, but still gods. 

P.P.S. I take issue with their creation-preservation-destruction trinity, though. They forgot restoration, the principle whose avatar is archangel Raphael. I too find him to be the most humbling of archangels, and understand the urge to forget.
This dual axis is creation-restoration vs. preservation-destruction. Creation and re-creation, vs. destruction and [destruction of destruction].

Monday, January 17, 2022

Government is the Opposite of Journalism

Journalism is the opposite of leadership. The more leadership you want, the more you need to suppress journalism. 

Imagine a "news" story about a spot of violence. There was a shooting. What's this actually about? It's about the fact that two men came to blows. They had some pre-existing conflict, which they could not resolve in any meaningful way. The journalist must keep as far away from these underlying causes as possible. The journalist is irresponsible, and always has to have an excuses, such as just relaying "the facts," as if gossip wasn't a sin.

If the story is a report instead of a narrative, a paper instead of a novel, that means the conflict is in your Conquest #1 domain. Nobody else knows shit about what happened, nor cares to know for that matter. When is random strangers' conflict in your Conquest #1 domain? When they're not random strangers, but subjects in your fief. When you are the local lord. 

When you are the local lord, you will naturally not take kindly to paid gossips mucking around with your loyal subjects. It makes your job at least twice as hard, and tells neither you nor your other subjects anything they didn't already know. 

A free press is the opposite of good government. Good government bans publication and broadcast on sight. 

P.S. Unless one of the men in the conflict is a narcissist, they won't take kindly to it either. Their families aren't going to be happy. It's nobody else's business. Journalists say "you have a right to know" because you have no right to know. They want to get paid anyway. 

Gnon laughs; reading this inherently profane crap is bad for you. ROI inherently a net loss. With journalists, everyone loses.

Sunday, January 16, 2022

Land of the "Free"

"In 2020, about 145.05 million people were full-time employees of state and local governments in the United States."

Anyone want to look that up as a fraction of the total labour force?
Total population is 350 million-ish, so regardless the answer will be: most everybody. Practically your entire economy is government action, you totalitarian Fascist freaks.

Americans and Their Social Rules are Designed to be Scammed

Everything is tuned to encourage defectors and discourage cooperators. 


One example:

America is anti-intellectual. They believe spending mental effort on things is a vice. America is commie-level egalitarian, which means that if one person was brilliant (Einstein) everyone is brilliant. That's why nobody should think hard about anything: it's already obvious, see?

Since everyone is but a temporarily embarrassed genius, nobody asks for help when they're cognitively overwhelmed, which advantages those who get cognitively overwhelmed less. Nobody gets help, but the latter don't need it.
Chamley-Judd Redistribution Impossibility Theorem: attempting to redistribute from the rich to the poor makes the poor poorer and the rich still rich. They attempt it because they want to advantage the already-advantaged. Egalitarians are seriously evil.
Because egalitarianism, they feel status anxiety. Because egalitarianism, they can't show off to cement their higher status. (They'll be called a showoff, and go down instead of up.) They're left with only bullying those weaker until they're so disadvantaged it's impossible to deny the gulf between rich and poor. It has to be...get this...already obvious. It has to be that nobody has to say anything.
(Until the Final Communism, there's always your marks at school. You can always quietly smirk at anyone who wasn't a straight-A student, right? At people like me, who was a sufficiently-solid B. That's egalitarianism for you. The bullying is important enough to maintain the unprincipled exception.)

If anyone does spend mental effort gaining a skill, it helps them hide it. "I'm just a regular bloke like you." "Yes, that is indeed what we're all supposed to think. I do what I'm supposed to do because I'm a good boy/girl!" Land of the free, everybody. The superior can then use this advantage to beat/scam everyone else, and the victims aren't allowed to even think about defending themselves, because it would mean deprecating the catechism.

Used to be that dumb, simple folk would seriously distrust any good speaker, for exactly the same kind of reason a short weedy guy has to be wary about the 6'6'' slab of muscle. (Talking probably 80+ years ago now.) They would refuse to even listen to you at all - literally holding their ears and singing - unless you were vouched by someone they trusted a great deal. They don't do that anymore: you can trick them at will, and they're not even allowed to blame you. They're the ones committing heresy. They're being evidence against egalitarianism.

On the flip side, if you spent mental effort gaining a skill and want to a) use it for others or b) teach them to have it too, you're shit out of luck. "I have something to contribute." "haha lol no u dn't" The American instantly dies to envy: they would rather you pretend to be an moron like them than benefit from being friends with you. 

All things can be perverted. Anything man can make, man can unmake. There are some skills that have to be perverted to do evil, and America all but bans these skills. You can't tell anyone you have them, and they're way too expensive to apply. If you're going to learn a skill anyway, why not learn one of the scamming skills directly instead of twisting a puzzle-solving skill into somehow tricking folk?


Do you have deep insight into the problems men cause themselves? That's great: you can use it to cause more of them. Ideally without being blamed, because nobody else understands the relationship between cause and effect. You can see those problems coming so you can tell which scams they're particularly prone to falling for. America #1! In a sense!


Unprincipled exceptions aside, the only purely creative skills Americans allow are ones that look effortless, such as the ones done alone. E.g. you're allowed to be a good video editor, because they see the final video, not the editing process. Can't watch you working hard and get jealous. Everyone can pretend they're as good at editing as you are. "I'm just a regular bloke."


Sometimes folk worry about "assortive" mating in America. Something something meritocracy. It's not that. It's because you're not allowed to show any skill that someone in the room lacks. The result being to discourage friendships with anyone even slightly different, including slightly different cognitively. The more-skilled person sees no benefit in the relationship, they just have to painstakingly hide their skills all the time. They say "diversity is our strength" because they cling so hard to uniform conformity. They hate uniforms because it draws your attention to how they're all behaving identically (and thus all redundant beyond the first).

As long as everyone in the room can do everything you can do, you can pretend that everyone in the country can do everything you can do. "Oh yeah, solving partial differential equations isn't that bad. Step 32, start taking..." Nobody is committing any heresy against egalitarianism, especially not yourself. Everyone is Awesome (except Racists of course).

Saturday, January 15, 2022

"Any "pro masculinity" guys that dont think you should be able to shoot someone to death for the slightest of insults against your honor is a grifter"

1. You should be able to challenge anyone to a duel to the death at any time.

2. If you think someone else can insult your honour, try not being six years old. Also, protip: don't swear fealty to anyone gullible enough to believe unsubstantiated rumours; they're not a lord, and you're begging to get jacked. 

Bike Metaphor for Fascism

Fascism is inherently insecure. It's a Nash non-equilibrium. There is always a better game strategy that beats current Fascism - a more criminal strategy, specifically. (You can scam it for good, but this means perverting the scam. Pushing water uphill. You will be consistently beaten by those who ride the water down and don't pay those expenses.) The Nash equilibrium is full Communism, which means stealing literally everything, including that which is nailed down, and the result is universal starvation. 100% mortality. 

There is shit all Fascists can do to stop other, more fanatical Fascists from stealing their lunch, except to repudiate Fascism. Or, to become the fanatical Fascist themselves and betray their own momentary principles in favour of the higher, more-fatal more-deadly principles.

Like this:

Broke: locking your bike up.
Woke: stealing your own bike. 

The former doesn't work, so you have to do the latter. Of course, bike thieves can't actually ride the bike around, can they? Maybe for a bit, but it will only get stolen in turn the instant they take their eyes off it. They have to fence it. Broke: riding your bike. Woke: fencing your own bike.

In the end everyone who wants to ride a bike tries to find one to steal, but since everyone is a thief, nobody has bikes to steal

In the end, everyone who wants to eat steals the food, but since everyone is a thief, there are no farmers, no food to steal, and everyone starves to death. 

P.S. Realistically the stress becomes so great that Fascism really does get repudiated. However, the populations of the city of Rome and Szechuan dropped by 90%. It goes pretty far. None of Nature's plagues have a 90% fatality rate, but Communism does. 

Humanity wanted to prove it's better than God? Good work: you're better at killing yourself than God is.

Friday, January 14, 2022

playing VG deathless is making it boring on purpose

if you never miss a plane you're spending too much time in airports

flights, at least, aren't supposed to be for entertainment - deliberately making your fun not-fun is just downright perverse

frankly deathless (or equivalent) shouldn't even be mechanically possible
one of the challenges offered should be recovering from a loss