I'm not sure there is the trap you claim. I do agree that enforcement, which does mean applying some level of force or power in some cases, is needed. Property rights, or any rights generally, don't just get respect and adherence from all. It's complicated but I do think one might suggest property rights emerging as preferred to just relying brute force and power as the determinant. Both Demsetz and Olson have some good work that suggests property rights and respect of property rights arises as much (more?) from desire and incentives to escape from the conflict and application of force/projection of power.
How well human history and social/cultural evolution might apply to any ASI futures is a big unknown, but for that very reason I tend to think projecting ASI behavior from human history and experience might itself be a bit problematic.
I had a bit of the same reaction (logic being many loose their jobs, income craters, good demand craters, corp earning crater stock price higher????). But I kind of see it from a I don't have a good handle on AI and equity market levels in the future so maybe stick to a strategy that historically makes sense.
I would only add some slight shifts to the suggestion. While it is also an open question for the average investor as to buy-hold versus timing the market works well, I do think most here can think though well enough to consider timing for the option allocation. Simple mean-reversion type entry points might increase the odd tempered by where one things the overall market is in the cycle.
I wonder if situations like the Cuban missile crisis are good examples for your position. But then I also wonder if that (I think apparently worried but calm about the world ending in a nuclear conflict) isn't contrasted by the claims about the mass hysteria after the radio broadcast of Well's War of the Worlds.
You really get asked that? Wow.
I also have always found the "the world might end tonight/tomorrow/next week" stories with people running around madly doing all the things they never would have otherwise a bit stretched. But then mob mentalities are not rational so I don't really try to make too much sense of them
I suppose that would be my first approach to coping with the world ending -- just keep my eye open to external madness and perhaps put some space between me and large population or something.
Since I generally don't believe anyone has ever promised me tomorrow, the end of the world case does seem to fit into the "what has that got to do with me" view. I'd much rather live my life on my own terms than concede I have been living according to other people terms for some reason and feel the end of the world somehow free me from some constraints or something.
I suspect some have seen this argument already but thought it was an interesting point of view on an aspect of AI that was new to me.
I wonder if it's less about rate of change (but don't really take any exception to that claim) and more about divergence of change from expectations. 1950's or 60's expectations (at least in pop culture) was flying cars and smart robot house servants -- think Jetson's here.
People of the early 20th Century had the direct experience of living though some very significant events which they probably had not really expected. The future became much more uncertain so receptivity to more possible outcomes probably increases. The situation is a bit different up to now, so I wonder if that doesn't place greater weight on a view of the future as some trend path with variation but mean-reversion.
The quick post is short, the effortpost is long
Years ago when I was in school one of my professors told me (well probably the whole class but...) you should be able to write the thesis of your entire paper on two or three index cards.
My initial thought was, then all the other writing is really a waste of effort I could put elsewhere. Not quite true. But that does seem to map over to the doodle - finished art point made. A lot of writing in the paper is the details and often can prove more distracting/noise to the main insight.
But I do have another thought on that. If you can put an interesting idea down in a very short set of statements or bullets the core to the thought is clear. The rest of what you write is about the author's view. Just offing the index card view opens up the field for every reader to take that idea/thought where they want to explore. That is often much more interesting for a reader.
1I do think that is good advise, and true regardless of trollish or good/bad faith. I read your comment and immediately thought of the shooting messengers rather than messages. In other words, don't let the messenger distract you from the actual message.
Reading the comments, though, it almost seems like many still focus on the "messenger" rather than the message carried -- and here I'm not specifically pointing at Elizabeth's post but the whole annoying/sneering/troll/just plain difficult person aspect, in other words the characteristics of the delivery rather than the value of the message/information/things the other person might contribute.
I think there may be a fairly critical confusion here, but perhaps have missed the key bit (or perhaps by seeing this particular tree have missed the forest the post is aiming at) that would address that. It seems that in "human values" here are defined very much in terms of a specific human. However, "goodness" seems to be more about something larger -- society, the culture, humanity as a class or even living things.
I suspect a lot of the potential error in treating the terms as near to one another disappears if you think of goodness for a specific person or thinking of human values in terms of human as a group that holds common values. (Granted, in this latter case get to specific values will be problematic but in terms of pure logic or abstract reasoning I don't think the issues are nearly as bad as implied in the OP.)
I don't quite like the framing "Don't Exist". I suspect a lot will depend on the specific context you need to use the term and the point one wants to make. Should I make a blanket statement "Murder Does Not Exists" simply because across cultures and national laws there is not 100% agreement on what defines a killing as murder or not murder? What about many of the technical standards that end up producing incompatible implementations that break interoperability? Are there really no standards?
I am probably more sympathetic to the last claim that to the one about murder or treaties.