Inciting Incident

A friend recently sent me this message on Discord:

so apparently one of the engineers helping elon essentially coup the government is a diehard rationalist lmao https://web.archive.org/web/20241124181237/http://colekillian.com/ lists "rationality a-z" as the book that most influenced him

is he doing some weird game theory shit behind the scenes do you think? or has he legit drank the koolaid

This friend is like half-familiar with the rationalist community and its ideas, as I've gotten him more into it over the years. He was not, however, necessarily as up-to-date about NRx, so some of my reply will be old news to many of you.

The following is my reply, lighted edited (i.e. conversational, without removing hyperboles or figurative language or simplifications) and heavily augmented with links:

What I Said

Y'know, I think somewhere in the process he drank Elon's kool-aid and sorta left his brain on like 2014/15-era autopilot.

He might literally think Elon's Nazi salute wasn't a Nazi salute.

On a game-theory level, it's extremely easy to basically think of yourself as a technolibertarian, and all the fascist stuff is just "necessary evils" to save America from SF-like zoning laws. (see: Anduril, Palantir)

For smart people, unfortunately, lots of the time we just rationalize stuff harder. Plenty of people swear by Rationality A-Z and have even read Meditations On Moloch, but then think they're one of the good capitalists and that the social system totally won't turn into a virus that eats them.

IMHO a bigger and more worrying influence is Curtis Yarvin, aka Mencius Moldbug, aka "the guy who wants a monarchical dictatorial CEO president". He beefed with and unfortunately apparently converted some rationalists to his cause, he was invested in by Peter Thiel, Thiel funds JD Vance, and Yarvin has written a buttload of posts over the years detailing how he wants Trump to do a coup.

Most lizardlike people on earth --> manipulate --> idealistic rationalists --> extract their intelligence --> use them up like ammo (a metaphor used by pre-Nazi-Musk employees to describe how he hired and fired) --> crystallize the intelligence into AI --> competence on-demand for the most powerful (i.e. mostly-selected to be the most-ruthless/psychotic) people on earth --> we all die by rogue AI and/or non-rogue AI drones and/or slow-burn police state and/or climate wars.

"Manipulate? But they're rationalists!" Sorry, get in line. I won thousands of dollars from a writing contest indirectly funded by SBF.

>"I'm one of the good ones."

>"I'm making tough choices."

>"It's a necessary evil."

>"Just survive until AI safety is solved, anyway let's build bigger and more-powerful AI."

>"I'll just take my piece of the pie before leaving, they can't golden-handcuff me!"

>"I don't believe in AI, so my actions make sense on a long-run future [40 paragraphs about how early Christians had more babies and now the world is perfect and Jesus-like, therefore if we just...]"

"Is there still hope?" Yes! It relies on unlikely, difficult, and/or unprecedented things happening. Then again, the world is getting more "unprecedented" every day, so maybe that's not the "drawback" it sounds like.

Bonus: a joke from later in the conversation

Yey, the awareness-of-the-Neoreactionaries (the sect that Yarvin basically owns) has now reached "leftist redditor tinfoil-hat comments", which basically means it'll be government policy by next week.

Closing Thoughts

I wish leftists existed who read and made The Sequences a part of themselves.

I wish those same people existed, and didn't then decide to become a cult of pro-Hell alleged serial killers.

I wish more leftists understood natural selection, selection effects in general, and memetics in particular.

I wish more rationalists and AI safety/alignment/governance people took Moloch seriously on the ground level, in their real everyday lives, and how they related to and are influenced by a systemic society ideology social system (insert 50 leftist buzzwords that are really just normal words).

I wish more rationalists would bother steelmanning classic leftist paranoid-redditor-tier leftist ideas. Sure, the "political journey" and the "valley of bad rationality" would've gotten even messier (I can attest to this!), but the long-term gains, I think, would've been worth it. Who knows, maybe the left and the rats would've learned more about memetics and group dynamics. Ideas mixing and developing, which could have (Do I dare hope?) eventually become free of blank slates and noble savages and might-makes-rights and power-ignorance and sociopathy-denial.

I wish that both the "tip top" and the "medium top" of educated people had consensus that both "property is downstream of power" and "prices are downstream of supply and demand".

I wish /r/leftrationalism had, like, any activity whatsoever.

But enough wishes.

Remember that hope I mentioned? And how it may flourish even now, with how weird things are going? Well, it would do you well to remember how the rationality community has prepared each of us for COVID and Big AI. The nontrivial percentage of us who made money from crypto and NVDA. The people with strange thoughts and the tools to check them against reality, if we desire.

Building and updating and extrapolating world-models, and from there making positive and creative change. The rest is commentary. Better late than never, eh?

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. - Hunter S. Thompson

New Comment
9 comments, sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I describe myself as a techno-hippy. I was reading Cory Doctorow while waiting for the next chapter of HPMoR. I’ve often wanted a good leftrat community. I feel ya. I have an intuition that Consequentialism is a dangerous philosophy to adopt for optimizers, especially when they get scared. It’s not a huge hop from “saving the world” to “saving people from themselves.”

When I was in my twenties, I’d spend hours a day in forums and on Reddit. I’ve moderated and participated. Now, I’m 47 I just don’t have it in me. Planting a banner works, but it’s a lot of work. 

This is about as close as I get to social media nowadays. It’s too easy to get people angry online, and to use that anger as a weapon. Right now I’m hoping I can guide my son through his teen-age years without him being weaponized. Hopefully kindness and the virtues of Stoicism stand stronger against inversion than Consequentialism. 

 

Something else I just realized: Georgism is a leftish idea that recognizes some (but not all) leftish ideas I've discussed or referenced above, and its modern form is currently rationalist-adjacent. Progress!

You could interpret that as "rationalists are moving to the left... expect more leftism in the future", or you could interpret that as "rationalists are choosing the parts that seem correct to them (and rejecting the parts that don't)... expect more cherry-picking from all directions in the future".

In what sense is Georgism "leftish"?

[-]sloonz1-2

I wish that both the "tip top" and the "medium top" of educated people had consensus that both "property is downstream of power" and "prices are downstream of supply and demand".

I really don’t like that quote. I can see multiple interpretations for "property is downstream of power", many of them subject to debate, and none of the firm grounding (and non-ambiguity) of Econ 101 enjoyed by "price are downstream of supply and demand".

It looks like to me a false equivalence, trying to say "see ? both sides clearly have a point", where one point is actually clear, and the other isn’t so clear.

Would you mind clarifying what the consensus should be exactly on this point ? Maybe I’m just not interpreting "property is downstream of power" correctly.

Well, the government could take all your property away at a whim; millions of people have experienced that. Plus there are things like eminent domain.

Also, the government can tax your property (and punish you if you don't pay e.g. by taking away that thing), which is kinda weird philosophically... on one hand, something already belongs to you, on the other hand, you need to keep paying to keep it so -- but this is how renting is supposed to work, not owning.

A more obvious example is the intellectual property. There are no Schelling points; twenty years of copyright versus hundred years, there is no number that seems obviously correct.

And if after Singularity, the superintelligent AIs decide that they won't respect human property claims (but may respect each other's property), then... that's just the new reality. Just like a human ignores how the ants in his garden have distributed the territory among themselves.

So the fact that you have a property at all is downstream from "there is a consensus among those with power that this definition of 'property' is generally a good thing to have".

There is the way these things are generally done in the Western civilization, but if you asked some people living in tribes, they probably would have wildly different intuitions about what a person can own.

I can only own something if I am strong enough to defend it, or if there is a consensus among the others that they should let me keep it.

Ah, sorry yeah I think it was a mistake on my part to mostly make the post a verbatim Discord reply. Lots of high-context stuff that I didn't explain well.

This specific part is (in my usage/interpretation; if you click the link, the initial context was an Emmett Shear tweet) basically a shorthand for one or more "basic" leftist views, along the lines of these similar-but-somewhat-distinct claims:

  • Capitalism more-reliably rewards power-maximizers than social-utility-maximizers.
  • Under capitalism and similar incentive-structures, we'd expect conflict theory to predict entities' wealth better than mistake theory.
  • General outcomes, under capitalism and similar incentive-structures, are downstream of "brute power" (from guns to monopolies) far more than the things we'd "want" to reward (innovation, good service, helping people, etc).
[-]sloonz-1-2

I think it was correct to ask the question, because, no, sorry, I don’t think you can equate that specific understanding of "property is downstream of power" with the same level of consensus/reasonableness as "prices are downstream of supply and demand", whereas the understanding given by Viliam is pretty much inside of what I would expect to be as consensual as "prices are downstream to supply and demand".

For example, regarding your second point : I think most economists would reply that that distinction is fallacious when considering creative destruction, both mistake (having a more correct view of the market and business organization) and conflict (and thereby driving your competitors bankrupt, forcing the reallocation of their resources elsewhere) as the two sides of the same coin.

And "innovation" not being a strong path to successful outcomes in capitalism ? Do you really think it is going to be consensual outside of leftist spheres ? Because that’s what the overall quote/tweet is about, right, creating a common understanding across political chasms under some reasonable assumptions ?

First point is really interesting tho. It’s one my libertarian self is screaming to reject, but the rationalist me readily accepts. With a caveat : I don’t think "Capitalism" does a lot of work here. Almost all (and all known ?) societal organizations do that. Which, conceded, does not it makes less problematic.

Curated and popular this week