[extropy-chat] RE: Singularitarian verses singularity

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On 12/22/05, The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 12/21/05, The Avantguardian
> > <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > The current and
> > > historical limitations to this sort of thing are
> > not
> > > based on intelligence but are instead primarily
> > > political.
> >
> > ### And where do the political limitations come
> > from, Stuart?
>
> Not from a lack of SAI but instead from an
> increasingly agregious assymetry in the distribution
> of the correlates of political effectiveness between
> the ruling and working classes.
>

### The spelling is "egregious". Otherwise, no comments are needed, I think.
----------------------------------------
> Politicans and voters don't have to understand the
> entire world in order to avoid destroying it. They
> just have to understand it resembles a game of
> Prisoner's Dilemma where maximizing one's own payoff
> by defecting not only lowers the utility of the other
> player but lowers the sum of the utility of both
> players taken as collective. Thus all else being
> equal, any tribe with one or more defectors is weaker
> than any tribe without.

### Do you think any significant number of humans are aware of this
fact in the context of political activity? (not in everyday
face-to-face exchanges where most have a good intuitive grasp of the
correct strategy)

Do you think you have a good definition of "defection" in the game of
life? Are humans on average smart enough to think their way through
decades of implications of their actions (e.g. voting for Social
Security or extending the Patriot Act) to predict the outcomes? Do
they need to be able to understand the consequences of their actions
to make correct decisions in the game of life? Do humans understand
the consequences of even a small fraction of state policies they are
involved in?

Hint: You should not answer in the affirmative to more than one of
these questions.

------------------------------------
>
> The level of understanding of politicians and voters
> has nothing to do with the percieved need for SAI.
> Unless of course you are suggesting doing away with
> democracy entirely and instituting SAD (superhuman
> artifical dictators). If this is the case than I am
> absolutely against any such use of SAI. Power tends to
> corrupt. Software tends to be corruptable. Software
> with absolute power is begging for corruption.

### Eliezer noticed this many years ago and this is why he set out to
design foolproof superhuman software. This is why I am a strong
supporter of SIAI (doubts regarding the computability of CEV and the
usefulness of athymhormic AI notwithstanding).

-----------------------------------------------

>
> >>  it is,
> > > logically speaking, a very simple problem to
> > solve.
> > > You merely redistribute the wealth of the ruling
> > class
> > > to globally relevant causes.
> >
> > ### Are sure? Just take a few billion dollars, kill
> > the people you
> > hate, and everything will be fine?
>
> Whoa. Stop right there. I said nothing of killing
> anyone.

### You wrote something about overcoming their resistance, or
something. Overcoming serious resistance means killing people.

-------------------------------------------------

 I will forgive you the implication that I am
> some blood thirsty revolutionary because of the
> actions of the Bolshevics of your homeland are still
> on your mind. You think because I criticize the
> government and the super-wealthy for the choices they
> make that I hate them?

### Yep. But you could try to convince me otherwise.

-----------------------------------

 Nothing can be farther from the
> truth. It is they that must lead the world in the
> transition from an economy of scarcity to one of
> abundance. It is a foolish team indeed that eliminates
> its most talented players in an effort to change its
> game plan.
>
> Condoning such a course of action would make me no
> better than the those I criticize. History shows such
> an approach only serves to substitute one regime with
> another equally or more oppressive regime. This has
> universally been case from the proscriptions of Sulla
> in ancient Rome to Hitler's Final Solution. We must
> not till that unfertile ground again. The solution I
> would propose is far different. It is a strategy born
> of love and not hate.

### Cool. Tell me just what is your effective way of "redistributing"
wealth to the morally correct uses without violence and I will hail
you as our savior.

Rafal