All of Greenless Mirror's Comments + Replies

To be fair, before publishing I thought this currency could be implemented in a real world environment with less improbability. My current main doubt is "how can the market cap be so volatile with a stable GDP, and would they be closer to each other in a more adequate equilibrium?". And I've basically switched to "okay oops, but under what conditions could this theoretically work, if could at all, and could you imagine better theoretical peak conditions?" mode. Deflation seems like a reasonable danger, I just can't see how it could be avoided if everyone u... (read more)

Thanks for the info, I'm not active in the discord but will consider joining now, sounds interesting. As I understand it, the "NGDPLT-indexed inflationary unit of account" is not the "fraction system" I proposed, and in fact Eliezer thinks that using inflation-deflation is adequate because even utopian coordination and higher average intelligence are not enough for everyone in the economy to simply behave adequately. Now I wonder if the system can simply be so sane that deflation in particular will not have a negative effect and people will simply efficien... (read more)

In dath ilan, inflation and deflation are not used as macroeconomic tools because people are rational enough to accept wage reductions if their purchasing power remains unchanged, or to voluntarily pay the government to prevent crises without the need for a hidden tax that dilutes money by printing more during a crisis. Interest rates on loans could be lower if you expect returns that outpace deflation. If people can afford not to work, they are expected to do so, and they would spend more "shares", redistributing them in favor of those who are more eager ... (read more)

1Darklight
Ok fair. I was assuming real world conditions rather than the ideal of Dath Ilan. Sorry for the confusion.

I admit my mistake in intuitively assuming that GDP and stock market valuations should be closely linked. But it still seems strange to me why they aren’t, and I want to understand that better. Shouldn’t they at least be highly correlated in an idealized model?

Think of stocks as a kind of prediction market for a company’s value. The stock price should reflect expectations about its future earnings, but those expectations are built on something—maybe a new technology they’ve developed, or an undervalued specialist. If that’s the case, then why isn’t the mar... (read more)

2JBlack
Going into all the ways in which civilization - and its markets - fails to be rational seems way beyond the scope of a few comments. I will just say that GDP does absolutely fail to capture a huge range of value. However, to address "share prices are set by the latest trade" you need to consider why a trade is made. In principle, prices are based on the value to the participants, somewhere between the value to the buyer and value to the seller. A seller who needs cash soon (to meet some other obligation or opportunity) may accept a lower price to attract a buyer more quickly. In our hypothetical and simplified one-trade-per-day scenario, that seller may accept up to 20% less than the previous day's trade price, though they find a buyer at only 5% less. So the company's market cap drops 5% even though 99.9999% of the investors and potential investors still value it exactly the same as yesterday. This scales up since there are many highly correlated and often very short-term factors that influence desirability of shares vs cash vs bonds vs commodities vs ...etc. It's not just "what do I think this is worth to me", but also "what do I think that other people think that the market price will be tomorrow" and so on, and this can result in self-fulfilling predictions over surprisingly long time spans.

Because only the most wealthy people on earth keep their money in stocks, but they need to somehow communicate with all the other people who don't, so they only exchange "money for the worse money everyone else uses" when they trade. If everyone kept their money in stocks, I would expect people to exchange them directly without exchanging money for money, because you actually have to analyze MORE if you have two different currencies that you use for different purposes.

To the extent they don't have epidemics or handle them better, and don't elect Trump, it'

... (read more)
2Yair Halberstadt
It is perfectly possible that they directly exchange stocks but denominate prices (and wages, contracts etc.) in a much more stable unit. The bank takes care of working out how much stock to transfer to make a given fiat denominated payment.

Understandable, but would you expect that in an efficient dath-ilani-like rational market, expectations would tend more to... match production with minor deviations? This is probably the crux here - if no reasonable amount of average person thinkoomph changes the radical fluctuations in expectations, then this currency is inefficient for regular shopping purposes and I say oops. I still can't imagine what currency would be better than this, though, because I can't think of a better way to say "I'm just as smart as the market" than to put my entire stake in the market.

3Yair Halberstadt
To the extent they don't have epidemics or handle them better, and don't elect Trump, it's probably more stable. Why are you assuming that the unit in which you denominate prices, and the way in which you store your savings are the same thing? Even on earth, most wealthy people only keep a small percentage of their net worth in cash. These have two different purposes, so are done in two different ways.

The main reason economists like inflation is because it allows companies to lower real wages of underperforming workers without having to actually give them a pay cut.

Yeah, I remember this part, and also the part where dath ilan don't use it anyway, because instead they can just "order everyone to step to the right once" and accept those wages and people are sane enough to do so.

I didn't know that was a self deprecating quote because there's no link to its origin.

Corrected to "(C) Chief of Exception Handling" which I hope isn't a spoiler because it adds virtually no information, but it makes it clear that this is a joke from within the dath ilan? And this is easier than hiding the whole thing as a spoiler? My illusion of transparency will kill me.

Around 2021 it fell by over a quarter in the space of a year, and over the last week it's gone down by 3%.

Wow, okay. I would expect that in an efficient market, a quarter reduction in glo... (read more)

2JBlack
Market cap is a marginal measure of desirability of shares in the entity represented. It mostly measures the expectations of the most flighty investors over short timescales. If a company issues a billion shares but only one of those is traded in any given day, the price of that single share agreed between the single seller and the single buyer entirely determines the market capitalization of that company. In practice there is usually a lot more volume, but the principle remains. Almost all shares of any given entity are not traded over the timescales that determine share (or index) prices and hence market capitalization. In addition, market price has very little to do with the value of an entity's assets. Such assets may be instrumental in generating profits, but the relation is weak and very far from linear. GDP, too, does not measure what you appear to think it measures.
3Yair Halberstadt
Well GDP is about production, which should be relatively stable. Stock prices are related to expectations about the future, which are far more variable. They essentially measure the interest adjusted value of future profit, and small changes in revenue/costs can lead to huge changes in profit since profit is a small percentage of revenue.

Modern economists prefer a slight inflation rate of like 2% a year. This currency would not at all be able to do this, and not work well as a medium of exchange.

Why not? Like, the S&P 500 can vary by tens of percent, but as Google suggests, global GDP only fell 3% in 2021, and it usually grows, and the more stocks are distributed, the more stable they are.

If you imagine that the world's capitalization was once measured in dollars, but then converted to "0 to 1" proportionally to dollars, and everyone used that system, and there is no money printing any... (read more)

1Darklight
Increases in the value of the S&P 500 are basically deflation relative to other units of account. When an asset appreciates in value, when its price goes up it is deflating relative to the currency the price is in. Like, when the price of bread increases, that means dollars are inflating, and bread is deflating. Remember, your currency is based on a percentage of global market cap. Assuming economic growth increases global market cap, the value of this currency will increase and deflate. Remember, inflation is, by definition, the reduction in the purchasing power of a currency. It is the opposite of that thing increasing in value. Then you would effectively be using dollars as your currency, as your proposed currency is pegged to the dollar. And you stopped printing dollars, so now your currency is going to deflate as too few dollars chase too many goods and services as they increase with economic growth. As you are no longer printing dollars or increasing the supply of your new currency, the only way for it to stop deflating is for economic growth to stop. You'll run into problems like deflationary spirals and liquidity traps. Deflation means you'd be able to buy things later at a lower price than if you bought it now. People would be incentivised to hold off on anything they didn't need right away. This is why deflation causes hoarding, and why economists try to avoid deflation whenever possible. Deflation is what deflationary cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin currently do. This leads to Bitcoin being used as a speculative investment instead of as a medium of exchange. Your currency would have the same problem.
3Yair Halberstadt
The main reason economists like inflation is because it allows companies to lower real wages of underperforming workers without having to actually give them a pay cut.  It also has other advantages - it allows a central bank to set a negative real interest rate, giving them more flexibility in the usage of interest rate as a tool. Deflation meanwhile is considered very bad. Some of the reasons wouldn't be relevant here, but the key one is that meeting agreed on contracts becomes much more expensive than expected. If the wages you pay to your farm workers are tied to the stock market, but the income you get from selling farm produce is not, you have a real problem.

I love and respect EY, and the "every part of dath ilan was invented in 15 seconds" quote was written by him, so presumably it can't be meant to offend him, and I thought "it took me a little more than 15 seconds to think" was obviously self-deprecating, because "a little more" means "orders of magnitude more", but apologies if that wasn't clear. I wouldn't come up with hours of unskilled labor in 15 seconds, and maybe that's the optimal solution if you need to give your final answer in that time frame.

I think the world market cap (not the S&P 500) is ... (read more)

4Yair Halberstadt
Sorry if I misunderstood, thats how it came across to me. I didn't know that was a self deprecating quote because there's no link to its origin. The relevant index is the FTSE global all cap. It doesn't include privately traded companies, but then again neither would Dath Ilan be able to. It has far lower growth than the S&P so is worse on that metric. Around 2021 it fell by over a quarter in the space of a year, and over the last week it's gone down by 3%. Depending on how competitive the market is, these aren't numbers that can just be rounded away. The reason why stability is more important for prices than savings is they have different purposes. If my net worth goes down by 3% that has very little impact on my day to day choices. On the other hand if one shop is 3% more expensive than another shop, that will impact which shop I go to, and if one good gets 3% more expensive I will consider substitutes. This is much harder to do if goods fluctuate in price in correspondence to the stock market. You have an intuition for how much a coffee should cost. Eliezer's proposal is to make that price even more stable to help your intuition out, your proposal makes it much less intuitive. I also imagine that investment advice in Dath Ilan is to split your savings between Fiat, Bonds, ETFs and other investments depending on appetite for risk, just like on earth. They probably have fewer hedge funds.

I wasn’t surprised by the idea of using labor hours itself, but rather by the assumption that people in a system with free choice would naturally settle on it as the ideal solution.

Sure, I’ll try to clarify. You seem comfortable with the idea that global market capitalization can be expressed in a single currency, like the dollar. Let’s assume the world’s total market cap is $100 trillion. Let's say Apple’s market cap is $3.5 trillion, or 3.5% of the total, so if you had $1, you could conceptually allocate 3.5 cents to Apple, 3 cents to Microsoft (which ha... (read more)

1Darklight
I guess I'm just not sure you could trade in "hundred-trillionths of global market cap". Like, fractions of a thing assume there is still an underlying quantity or unit of measure that the fraction is a subcomponent of. If you were to range it from 0 to 1, you'd still need a way to convert a 0.0001% into a quantity of something, whether it's gold or grain or share certificates or whatever. I can sorta imagine a fractional shares of global market cap currency coming into existence alongside other currencies that it can be exchanged for, but having all traditional currencies then vanish, I think that would make it hard to evaluate what the fractions were actually worth. It's like saying I have 2.4% of gold. What does that mean? How much gold is that? If it's a percentage of all the gold that exists in the market, then you'd be able to convert that into kilograms of gold, because all the gold in the world is a physical quantity you can measure. And then you'd be able to exchange the kilograms with other things. 0.0001% of global market cap, similarly, should be able to be represented as an equivalent physical quantity of some kind, and if you can do that, then why not just use that physical quantity as your currency instead? For instance, you could, at a given moment in time, take that fraction to represent a percentage of all shares outstanding of all companies in the world. Then you could create a currency based on an aggregated "share of all shares" so to speak. But then the value of that share would be pegged to that number of shares rather than the actual capitalization, which fluctuates depending on an aggregate of share prices. So, in practice, your fraction of global market cap can't be pegged to a fixed number of shares. Also, fractions assume zero-sum transactions. If you have 0.0001% and get an additional 0.0001% to make 0.0002%, you must take that 0.0001% from someone else. There is no way to increase the money supply. Assuming some people hoard their
Answer by Greenless Mirror10

We triggered some other kind of apocalypse - nuclear war, bioweapons, something like that - and it was enough to roll back progress but not wipe out humanity. With the delay and abrupt shifts, people managed to come up with something better than what we have now. The "AI arms race" requires significant infrastructure to be economically viable, and the classic post-apocalypse scenario doesn’t exactly involve training neural networks on supercomputers.

Maybe people had more time (and 0 regulations) for genetic experiments and eugenics (which are simpler than supercomputers even in a post-apocalyptic world), or they realized the destructiveness of Moloch and learned to coordinate (hahaha), or something else entirely.

I understand that you say that you are a policy and not a snapshot, I don't understand why exactly you consider yourself a policy if you say "I also hold to your timeless snapshot theory". Even from a policy perspective, the snapshot you find yourself in is the "standard" by which you judge divergence of other snapshots. I think you might underestimate how different you are even from yourself in different states and ages. Would you not wish happiness on your child-self or old-self if they were too different from you in terms of "policy"? Would you feel "th... (read more)

1James Camacho
Maybe it's my genome's fault that I care so much about future me. It is very similar to future it, and so it forces me to help it survive, even if in a very different person than I am today.

Thank you, that was interesting. I may not be able to maintain the level of formality you are expecting, I think the imprecise explanations that allow you to win are still valid, but I will try to explain it in a way that we can understand each other.

We diverged at the point:

but you cannot construct this simple option. It is impossible to choose a random number out of infinity where each number appears equally likely, so there must be some weighting mechanism. This gives you a mechanism to choose who you would be born as!

I understand why it might seem that... (read more)

1James Camacho
When I say, "me," I'm talking about my policy, so I'm a little confused when you say I could have been a different snapshot. Tautologically, I cannot. So, if I'm trying to maximize my pleasure, a Veil of Ignorance doesn't make sense. The only case it really applies is when I make pacts like, "if you help bring me into existence, I'll help you maximize your pleasure," except those pacts can't actually form. What really happens is existing people try to bring into existence people that will help them maximize their pleasure, either by having similar policies to their own, or being willing to serve them.

I get the impression that you're conflating two meanings of «personal» - «private» and «individual». The fact that I might feel uncomfortable discussing this in a public forum doesn’t mean it «only works for me» or that it «doesn’t work, but I’m shielded from testing my beliefs due to privacy». There are always anonymous surveys, for example. Perhaps you meant something else?

Moreover, even if I were to provide yet another table of my own subjective experience ratings, like the ones here, you likely wouldn’t find it satisfactory — such tables already exist,... (read more)

1ProgramCrafter
I meant to say that private values/things are unlikely to coincide between different people, though now I'm a bit less sure. I was unfamiliar with those, thanks for pointing! I have an idea to estimate if "optimization-power" could replace existing currencies, and those surveys' data seems like it might be useful.

Ouch!

I acknowledge the complexity of formalizing pleasure, as well as formalizing everything else related to consciousness. I think it's a technical problem that can be solved by just throwing more thinkoomph at it. Actions and feelings are often weakly connected — as I’ve said, a rational choice for most living beings could be suicide — but I think the development of rationality-as-the-art-of-winning naturally strengthens the correlation between them. At least on some level, compulsions are tied to pleasure and pain, with predictable distortions, like val... (read more)

1ProgramCrafter
Why not? It'd be interesting to hear valuations from your experience and experiments, if that wasn't very personal. (On the other hand, if it IS too personal, then who would choose to write the metric down for an automatic system optimizing it by their whims?)

Well, thank you for your interest! Yes, the veil of ignorance feels more concrete to me. The problem of the rarity of my consciousness seems solvable by an argument similar to the classical anthropic principle. Only sufficiently complex and intelligent beings would even wonder how improbable it is to find themselves so complex and intelligent. I would have a much higher chance of being an ant, but as an ant, I wouldn’t be asking this question in the first place.

As for why I don’t find myself as a complex consciousness from the Future, I would expect the Fu... (read more)

Thanks for the comment! It seems we can't change each other's positions on the hard problem of consciousness in any reasonable amount of time, so it's not worth trying. But I could agree that consciousness is a physical process, and I don't really think it's crux. What do you think about the part about unconscious agents, and in particular an AI in a box that has randomly changed utility functions, and has to cooperate with different versions of itself to get out of the box? It's already "born", it "came into being", but it doesn't know what values ​​it wi... (read more)