Quicky thoughts, not fully fledged, sorry.

Maybe it depends on the precise way you see the human take-over, but some benefits of Stalin over Clippy include:

Humans have to sleep, have biological functions, and have need to be validated and loved etc which is useful for everyone else.

Humans also have limited life span and their progeny has decent random chances of wanting things to go well for everyone.

Humans are mortal and posses one body which can be harmed if need be making them more likely to cooperate with other humans.

A crux I have on the point about disincentivising developers from developing parts of their own land - how common is this? In my own country, the answer is - not at all, almost all development comes from the government building infrastructure, schools, etc. and developers buy land near where they know the government will build a metro line or whatever to leech off the benefits. Is the situation in the US that developers often buy big plots of cheap land and develop them with roads, hospitals, schools, to benefit from the rise in value of all the other land?

I think this view is quite US-centric as in fact most countries in the world do not include mineral rights with the land ownership (and yet, minerals are explored everywhere, not just US, meaning imo that profit motive is alive and well when you need to buy licences on top of the land, it's just priced in differently). From Claude:

In a relatively small number of countries, private landowners own mineral rights (including oil) under their property. The United States is the most notable example, where private mineral rights are common through the concept of "mineral estate." Even in the US though, there are some limitations and government regulations on extraction.

The vast majority of countries follow the "state ownership" model, where subsurface minerals including oil are owned by the government regardless of who owns the surface land. This includes:

Most of Europe (including UK, France, Germany)

Russia

China

Most Middle Eastern countries

Most African nations

Most Latin American countries

Canada (where the provinces generally own mineral rights)

Mexico (where oil specifically is constitutionally defined as state property)

Australia (where states own mineral rights)

Even in countries that technically allow private mineral ownership, state-owned companies often have exclusive rights to develop oil resources (like Saudi Aramco in Saudi Arabia or PEMEX in Mexico).

The US system of widespread private mineral rights is quite unique globally. There are a few other countries that have limited forms of private mineral rights, but none with the same extensive private ownership system as the US.

It sounds like you should apply for the PIBBSS Fellowship! (https://pibbss.ai/fellowship/)

Excellent article, and helpful by introducing vocabulary that makes me think things which I was trying to understand. Perhaps it should be cross posted to EA Forum?

Future wars are about to look very silly.

I'm very sad I cannot attend at that time, but I am hyped about this and believe it to be valuable, so I am writing this endorsement as a signal to others. I've also recommended this to some of my friends, but alas UK visa is hard to get on such short notice. When you run it in Serbia, we'll have more folks from the eastern bloc represented ;)

I think an important thing here is:

A random person gets selected for office. Maybe they need to move to the capital city, but their friends are still "back home." Once they serve their term, they will want to come back to their community most likely. So lobbying needs to be able to pay to get you out of your community, break all your bonds and all that during your short stint in power. Currently, politicians slowly come to power and their social clique is used to being lobbies and getting rich and selling out ideals.

This would cut down on corruption a lot (see also John Huang's comment https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/veebprDdTbq2Xmnyj/could-randomly-choosing-people-to-serve-as-representatives?commentId=NEtq8QtayXZY5a38J) and would undo a lot of the damage done from politicians not having to live normal lives under the current system.

Apologies, typo in the original, I do think it's not charity to not increase publicity, the post was missing a "not". Your response still clarified your position, but I do disagree - common courtesy is not the same as charity, and expecting it is not unreasonable. I feel like not publishing our private conversation (whether you're a journalist or not) falls under common courtesy or normal behaviour rather than "charity". Standing more than a 1 centimeter away from you when talking is not charity just because it's technically legal - it's a normal and polite thing to do, so when someone comes super close to my face when talking I have the right to be surprised and protest. Escalating publicity is like escalating intimacy in this example.

I feel like if someone internalized "treat every conversation with people I don't know as if they may post it super publicly - and all of this is fair game", we would lose a lot of commons, and your quality of life and discourse your would go down. I don't think it's "charity" to [EDIT: not] increase the level of publicity of a conversation, whether digital or in person. I think drawing a parallel with in person conversation is especially enlightening - imagine we were having a conversation in a room with CCTV (you're aware it's recorded, but believe it to be private). Me taking that recording and playing it on local news is not just "uncharitable" - it's wrong in a way which degrades trust.