Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: somnicule 19 April 2014 12:34:28AM 0 points [-]

Not sure I understand this properly. Why not do something?

Comment author: blacktrance 18 April 2014 10:10:09PM -2 points [-]

If you successfully convinced me that there was no morality, I wouldn't rationally choose to do anything, I'd just sit there, since I wouldn't believe that I should do anything. I'd probably still meet my basic bodily needs when they became sufficiently demanding, since I wouldn't suppress them (I'd have no reason to), but beyond that, I'd do nothing.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 18 April 2014 09:26:07PM 1 point [-]

Kinda like this site. :-)

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 18 April 2014 09:23:43PM 1 point [-]

This kind of philosophy sounds like it's going to make a few people very good at tackling hard problems, while causing everyone else to become demotivated and hate math.

Comment author: rule_and_line 18 April 2014 05:57:45PM *  0 points [-]

Is there a convenient place to see just what changed from the old to the new?

Online diff tools aren't usefully handling the paragraphs when I copy-paste, and my solution of download -> insert line breaks -> run through my favorite diff program is probably inconvenient for most.

Comment author: Nornagest 18 April 2014 04:56:50PM 1 point [-]

I didn't want to give an example of work done as a volunteer but an example of a futuristic society where people don't work for money.

People in Star Trek work sometimes for patriotism, sometimes for gold-pressed latinum, but mostly toward whatever the plot says they need to be doing. I foresee problems with using narrative tension as a medium of exchange.

Comment author: Nornagest 18 April 2014 04:41:16PM 1 point [-]

I'm not sure that's quite in the spirit of the thread rules, what with how closely tied Slate Star Codex is to the LW community. But it's a good enough abuse of Solzhenitsyn that I'm upvoting it anyway.

Comment author: Vaniver 18 April 2014 04:04:42PM 0 points [-]

The original quotation on LW.

Comment author: ChristianKl 18 April 2014 01:45:47PM 0 points [-]

In this case I don't think so.

I didn't want to give an example of work done as a volunteer but an example of a futuristic society where people don't work for money.

The Open Source movement also also a bunch of different people doing things for various reasons and incentives.

Comment author: ciphergoth 18 April 2014 01:17:46PM 0 points [-]

s/nut hope/but hope/

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 18 April 2014 12:35:42PM 1 point [-]

The open source movement is a better example of voluntary word than star trek.

Comment author: JoshuaFox 18 April 2014 12:29:02PM *  2 points [-]

This is great! For a long time I've been saying that we need summaries at different lengths, and I see it's coming together now.

This one is good as an executive summary.

The next step is to produce a short summary with emotional appeal; a call to action. It's been noted that simply stating the problem of AI existential risk does not bring people on-board. Staring into the Singularity is an example of a emotionally appealing call to action (for outdated policies, however).

But I do not have any specific ideas for implementation, and again, this is excellent for the purpose it was designed for.

Comment author: ChristianKl 18 April 2014 12:06:02PM 0 points [-]

Christians absolute egalitarianism is view I have never heard articulated before. It seems to be the mirror image of anarcho-capitalism, the philosophy that guns for 100% freedom.

If you want to have it articulated in a bit more detail Zeitgeist Appendum can give you an impression. With 5 million youtube it there are quite a few people on the internet who profess to follow that ideology.

According to it we need a central computer who tells everyone what work to do. People will do what the computer tells them because their education teaches them the value of following what the computer tells them, so perfectly that everybody just does what's in the "public interest" and follows the directions of the central scientific computer program.

Because there won't be money anymore, nothing will stop the digging of intercontinental tunnels for transportation needs so that you don't need airplanes.

I have meet multiple people who believe that framework. Fortunately people outside of the political process where they won't do much harm. Unfortunately a bunch of them are smart, so intelligence doesn't seem to protect against it. One of them ranks quite well in debating tournaments.

Comment author: ChristianKl 18 April 2014 11:47:31AM *  0 points [-]

Rousseau's "The Social Contract" begins with the words:

MAN is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they. How did this change come about? I do not know. What can make it legitimate? That question I think I can answer.

I don't think that any modern person on the left is as direct as that when it comes to freedom, but in European political thought the idea of the Social Contract is quite central.

Well, another consequence is that it would destroy the motivation for people to engage in productive work (if the benefits would just get redistributed) so you'd wind up with a bunch of equally starving people.

The idea is that in the end state people would be motivated to work as a way of self actualization and don't need financial incentives to do work. Star Trek has characters who work without getting payed to do so.

The observation that today many people need money to be motivated to work doesn't mean that will always be true in the future and that we shouldn't work on moving society in that direction.

The idea of an end state doesn't mean something that can be reached in 10 years a state that can take quite a while to reach.

Comment author: ChristianKl 18 April 2014 11:27:53AM *  0 points [-]

Christians absolute egalitarianism is view I have never heard articulated before.

I can describe ideas without them being mine. In this case we are speaking about ideas in the party program of the SPD.

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 18 April 2014 10:23:20AM 0 points [-]

In the end, removed Goebells, Oprah and Bach, added Napoleon and Spielberg.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 18 April 2014 09:45:36AM *  0 points [-]

I actually agree that running for 100% equality would likely result in 0% freedom.

For my money that is an extreme illustration of "you can't satisfy all values simultaneously" , not of "left bad".

Christians absolute egalitarianism is view I have never heard articulated before. It seems to be the mirror image of anarcho-capitalism, the philosophy that guns for 100% freedom.

To me, it's symmetric.

To you there is apparently a "side" that is in contact with reality, and a side that isn't.

Yes, there are a lot of things that would go wrong, to the average utility function, with absolute egalitarianism . Ditto for absolute libertarianism. But you never mention that.

It's an open question whether a given extremist, of any stripe, is someone who has (1) a one-sided utility function, (2) who wrongly thinks that an average, mixed UF can be satisfied by extreme policies.

As such, you don't get to assume that (2) is true of anyone in this discussion.

Comment author: Kevin 18 April 2014 08:58:13AM 0 points [-]
Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 18 April 2014 08:51:30AM 0 points [-]

Siren worlds are optimised to be bad and hide this fact. Marketing worlds are optimised to appear good, and the badness is an indirect consequence of this.

Comment author: brazil84 18 April 2014 07:51:24AM 0 points [-]

I agree that it's difficult to tell how good a lawyer is, which leads to a lot of nonsense like firms spending a lot of money of impressive offices and spending hours and hours of time chasing down every last grammatical error before filing court papers.

View more: Next