lukeprog comments on Politics Discussion Thread September 2012 - Less Wrong

-1 Post author: Multiheaded 05 September 2012 11:27AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (195)

Comments (195)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: lukeprog 09 September 2012 03:32:19AM *  11 points [-]

I used to have political views like this:

"Due to the diminishing marginal value of money and other factors, I expect greater total and average utility to result from greater wealth equality than is currently found in the United States."

Now I have political non-views like this:

"I expect greater total and average utility (over the next few decades) to result from greater wealth equality than is currently found in the United States, but it looks like the utility of x-risk reduction might trump basically everything else, and I doubt that "good for x-risk reduction" reliably tracks with "good for humans over the next few decades," so until I spend some serious time thinking about what political and economic policies are best for x-risk reduction, I'm not sure I have any reflectively-endorsed political views.

But somehow I never get around to thinking much about which political and economic policies are best for x-risk reduction. I wish somebody else (somebody who knows their shit) would do so.

Sure, there's the obvious stuff like "Engage in differential intellectual progress to reduce x-risk," but I'm not sure what to think about economic and political policies that aren't so directly related to x-risk. Would letting the Bush tax cuts expire increase or decrease x-risk? Fuck if I know.

Comment author: [deleted] 09 September 2012 05:11:57PM *  7 points [-]

This post single-handedly made me think this entire thread was a good idea.

But somehow I never get around to thinking much about which political and economic policies are best for x-risk reduction. I wish somebody else (somebody who knows their shit) would do so.

A sequence on this would be of high value. But I wish we had more recent articles on economics on this site period. Considering how closely related that field is to the study of rationality it is surprising we explicitly say as little as we do on it, nor do we provide anything like an introduction for new readers. Actually on second thought it isn't that surprising since we needed a long time to give game theory the latter treatment. More economics related links in discussion, posts and book reviews are something that would be easier for us to do right away.

Perhaps that would help attract the right cluster of people interested in the topic and capable of contributing to the site? I thinks the results (even in this early stage) of the writing and networking that happened around effective charity show that growing the community in useful directions can be a good way to make progress on such questions.

Comment author: sixes_and_sevens 11 September 2012 04:01:46PM 0 points [-]

What kind of progress do you expect could be made, and on what kind of questions?

Comment author: Athrelon 09 September 2012 05:21:47PM 2 points [-]

Also worth knowing: what incremental, actually-achievable political change would most reduce x-risk, and what is the ROI of lobbying or investing in projects to bring such a change about?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 12 September 2012 03:37:32AM 2 points [-]

Well, I suspect one of the largest effects is that it's good to have a class of people with excess cash that they can afford to donate to speculative X-risk reduction projects.

Comment author: lukeprog 12 September 2012 07:38:53PM 1 point [-]

But not so much cash that they can invest in AGI projects, you mean?

Comment author: Multiheaded 12 September 2012 09:36:36AM *  0 points [-]

How large a class, with how much "excess cash", how much of it can they afford to donate, and at what opportunity cost to themselves?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit