You can now view Arbital through GreaterWrong: https://arbital.greaterwrong.com/ Some of Arbital's features are supported and some aren't; let me know in the comments if there's anything you're particularly missing. Thanks to emmab for downloading the content.
You can now view Arbital through GreaterWrong: https://arbital.greaterwrong.com/ Some of Arbital's features are supported and some aren't; let me know in the comments if there's anything you're particularly missing. Thanks to emmab for downloading the content.
Robin Hanson's post History of Blackmail only mentions cases where blackmail was illicit or illegal. Have there ever been any societies, large or small, where blackmail was widely accepted?
This is something I've been tinkering with for a while, but I think it's now complete enough to be generally useful. It's an alternative frontend for LessWrong 2.0, using the GraphQL API. Features: * Fast, even on low-end computers and phones * Quickly jump to new comments in a thread...
The way I see it, society is basically a big ultimatum game: the rich get to steer it in whatever way they choose, and the masses can either accept what they do or smash everything and go back to the "stone age". So that sets the terms of the ongoing negotiation. It's hard to have something like a wealth ceiling because it's hard for millions of people to commit to being okay with someone having $100,000,000 but blowing up the world if someone has $100,000,001.
No, it's not possible for it to be negative. You're not allowed to murder people even if you save an equal or greater number. If you invented a machine that had a 49% chance of killing me and a 51% chance of making me immortal, and you pointed it at me without permission, you would be committing a heinous crime and I'd be perfectly justified in self-defense. AI CEOs are doing the same thing at a much larger scale.
Along similar lines, should we consider Sam Altman, Dario Amodei, etc. to be more evil than Hitler, in terms of the expected number of people they will murder?
There's no objective answer to whether acausal extortion works or not, it's a choice you make. You can choose to act on thoughts about acausal extortion and thereby create the incentive to do acausal extortion, or not. I would recommend not doing that.
It works for getting the typical LMArena user to click the like button, but it's not clear that it works for persuasion or anything else. Personally I find the style very offputting and usually stop reading when I notice it.
This is an important topic, but this post seems like it was written by AI.
I don't know how people get the idea that this type of reckless behavior is anything remotely like what Gwern's essay recommends.
GW deals with this by blocking scrolling and blanking out the page until the relevant anchor tag has loaded.
How do you envision that happening, concretely? It seems to me that elites are elite because they are simply the best at doing whatever it takes to maintain their power, and any replacement elite would have to do similar things or itself be replaced. If it were possible for the majority to govern society for their own benefit from the bottom up, we'd be living in a communist utopia already.
You can now view Arbital through GreaterWrong: https://arbital.greaterwrong.com/
Some of Arbital's features are supported and some aren't; let me know in the comments if there's anything you're particularly missing.
Thanks to emmab for downloading the content.
Robin Hanson's post History of Blackmail only mentions cases where blackmail was illicit or illegal. Have there ever been any societies, large or small, where blackmail was widely accepted?
This is something I've been tinkering with for a while, but I think it's now complete enough to be generally useful. It's an alternative frontend for LessWrong 2.0, using the GraphQL API.
Features:
Thanks to Said Achmiz for designing the themes and writing much of the frontend JavaScript.
Give it a try: https://www.greaterwrong.com
Sorry, I didn't intend to fearmonger. I agree with pretty much everything else in this comment. European social democracies seem pretty nice, and communism isn't necessarily always the worst thing in the world (although I usually avoid saying that on LW because it gets me downvoted). However, communism didn't end up working out anything like the way early communists envisioned, and countries that ended up communist or social democratic had to go through specific historical events that ended up making them that way. Right now billionaires seem unwilling to make concessions because they think under the current circumstances they will win in a showdown with the public, and I don't really see why they're wrong. Why do you think they're wrong?