Thanks, I'll check it out.

... at a global scale, energy, which is the foundation of all utility, is conserved globally, meaning that a global scale, everything must be a 0-sum game.

If this were the case, there would be no life on earth. The "engine of progress which made basically everything positive sum" is the sun. The sun provides a constant stream of energy and will continue to do so for billions of years. So, "at a global scale" the system is positive-sum, not zero-sum, no breaking of the first law of thermodynamics required. While the total energy on earth remains constant that is because we dissipate heat through entropy. The fact that we take in energy (order) and dissipate heat (disorder) is a byproduct of global "work" which can continually take place as long as the sun survives.

It seems very strange to make arguments referencing the laws of thermodynamics to explain the specifics of civilisation without recognising the role of the sun. Sorry to seem argumentative, I really think you're mistaken on this point.

Thanks for your recommendations, I look forward to reading them all.

I'm aligned with your thinking about the growth of positive-sum games (it's the premise of the site where my posts originate). I was interested that you believe that zero-sum games will return "due to the laws of physics". What do you think is going to change about physics to reverse the trend towards positive-sum games? We live in a planet with surplus free energy (from the sun, which makes positive-sum systems from life to civilisation possible), so I'm not sure why we would expect (while that fuel source exists) for the positive-sum results of that surplus to change.

Perhaps you're making a Malthusian prediction based on limited resources here on earth?

I personally love the idea of having a highly rational partner to bounce ideas off, and I think LLMs have high utility in this regard, I use them to challenge my knowledge and fill in gaps, unweave confusion, check my biases.

However, what I've heard about how others are using chat, and how I've seen kids use it, is much more as a cognitive off-loader, which has large consequences for learning, because "cognitive load" is how we learn. I've heard many adults say "It's a great way to get a piece of writing going", or "to make something more concise", these are mental skills that we use when communicating that will atrophy with disuse, and unless we are going to have an omnipresent LLM filter for our thoughts, this is likely to have consequences, for our ability to conceive of ideas and compress them into a digestible form.

But, as John Milton says "A fool will be a fool with the best book". It really depends on the user, the internet gave us the world's knowledge at our fingertips, and we managed to fill it with misinformation. Now we have the power of reason at our fingertips, but I'm not sure that's where we want it. At the same time, I think more information, better information and greater rationality is a net-positive, so I'm hopeful.

Developing an idea about complexity and emergence which looks at the stages of an emergent cycle—that being how a substrate gives rise to an emergent phenomenon, which reaches equilibrium providing the substrate for a the next phenomenon. The way I see it, it goes something like this:

quantum randomness > is predictable at a certain scale > reaches equilibrium > becomes base + randomness (as a byproduct)

or this

substrate + free energy > patterns emerge (disturbances in the uniformity of the free energy) > equilibrium reached > substrate + free energy

This echoes Hegel's cycle regarding history...

thesis > antithesis > synthesis (thesis - the substrate for further development)

But it's cumulative. Like a spiral (so is Hegel's actually, as it refers to History which moves forward so cycles don't fold back on themselves)

Karl Popper has a related cycle related to intellectual discovery...

Problem 1 > Tentative Theory > Error Elimination (equilibrium) > Problem 2 (the byproduct left out of the solution to P1)

Popper suggests that this is analogous to inorganic physics, biology (using the example of an amoeba responding to heat) and intellectual discovery. Popper refers to organisms as problem-solving structures (to my mind the problem being solved is how to serve entropy probably, organisms are said to be dissipative structures, that while being ordered themselves increase entropy more efficiently than if they weren't there).

My sense is that all creative or emergent processes follow this pattern. substrate + randomness, patterning (un-uniforming), equilibrium, substrate + randomness.

I'd be interested if anyone else has criticism, or better codifications of this, or elements I've missed in this very rough outline, before I solidify this kernel of an idea into a proper post (probably with pictures or interactives).

That (deliberate grieving) was also an interesting read, yes, exactly.

I see, I think you're right not to change it—it's just provocative enough to be catchy.

Wow, that was quick. I mean, rather than scaffolding work that seems unproductive but is actually necessary, most creative time (for me at least) is wasted in resisting change (my number 3 point was about trying changes even if you don't immediately agree with them).

Thanks for this, nice writing.

The idea of 'thinking it faster' is provocative, because it seems to be over-optimising for speed rather than other values, where as the way you're implementing it is by generating more meaningful or efficient decisions which are underpinned by a meta-analysis of your process—which is actually about increasing the quality of your decision-making.

I think it's worthwhile seeing where we're wasting time. But often I find wasted time isn't what you'd expect it to be. As someone who also works in the creative industry, criticism is a lot easier than creating something out of whole cloth. Your senior partner, doesn't just have more experience, but is also a fresh pair of eyes looking at the product you're creating from a macroscopic (user's) perspective—this is much easier when you're not mired in the minutiae. I get this feedback in my job (a documentary editor) not only from people more experienced than me, but also those less experienced.

There a two things I have learned from experience:

1. Blocking out a scene is useful, even though the scene will never be in that form—the boring form of the scene makes it easier to step back and see the more creative way to approach the scene. The time spent making the picture clearer isn't wasted.
2. When working alone, step away and view your work from a fresh perspective (in my case the audience, in yours the user) to be your own director / senior partner.

That being said, I think it's well worth meta-analysing your own process and that of your more experienced colleagues, another thing I've learned is...

3. When someone you trust gives you changes you don't agree with, try them, they probably have a clearer perspective than you do.

Anyway, thanks for the post, I'm planning to implement your advice in my own job, it sounds like a worthwhile process. I actually think this third thing is likely to be a key lesson learned from meta-analysis, to not be stubborn and to pivot to the better solution more freely, what I call "back it up and break it".

Thanks Hastings,

I think at that time you could reason much better if you could recognize that the separation between left and right was not natural.

I think you're saying it was easier in the past to see unorthodox or contradictory views within parties because the wings were more clearly delineated. I'd agree, it was a divided time, but a less chaotic divided time.

The effective left right split is mono-factor: you are right exactly in proportion to your personal loyalty to one Donald J. Trump

Absolutely, it's also bizarre regarding his tariff policy which is wholly anti-free market, that's a point the left didn't pick up on (because of the chaos I imagine) that was obvious to me. As a left-wing (pro-taxation) person myself who also believes in free markets, his approach is so anti-thetical to my own views, as if he took the last good idea on the right (free markets), and abandoned that in order to create a party based on all the bad ideas. This sort of contrarianism is something I've read Steven Pinker write about as a loyalty test (to despots and cult leaders)—the inducement to followers to knowingly lie or act contrary to their own interests as a statement of loyalty to each other through joint faith in the dear leader.