“In this metaphor, the people you mention would match up with the ‘tankies’ - small in number and smaller in influence” Yes, no doubt about it. But I think that it’s still worth trying to understand why they hold those opinions, so that they may be corrected.
either they see the managerial state as the chief threat (...) or believe that the top of the U.S. power structure is still red tribe
Can you please clarify what you mean by managerial state? If it is the archetypal “big government” in the standard conservative sense, then I would consider a third option. They may see not government but private corporations wielding power over AGI/ASI as the chief harm. Fast acceleration of capabilities, but more importantly, fast proliferation of local model power could disrupt the frontier-lab monopoly power.
Thus, they are not as aligned with e/acc as they are with Vitalik Buterin’s d/acc. I think that is a meaningful distinction, since their wish seems to me the opposite of red-tribe : more government regulation and less corporate independence. Only the anti-elite culture war has some similarity. Democrats have proposed some AI risk management, but not anything close to calling for democratic/public control over AGI-scale power.
I think this is a meaningful distinction because I haven’t seen any conservatives or e/accs call for it either. Instead, they defend greater private control, even if sometimes more decentralized, but private all the same.
Red tribe members under 60 generally skew anti-Israel and are opposed to sending arms to the Ukraine/Russia conflict, whereas most prominent Dems are vocally pro-Ukraine and quietlypro-Israel.
I don’t understand the comparison here. Most prominent Conservatives are also (loudly) pro-Israel, even if rank and file isn’t. The same pattern is seen in the Democrats: A new poll just came out claiming that 58% of Democrats now say the U.S. is “too supportive” of Israel. I take the point to be about elite/base divergence, is that the intended comparison? Are you trying to say that, just like opposition to Israel, opposition to corporate control over powerful AI is politically helpless?
I’m not a radical, but I do understand many of their grievances, such as this one. I also think we should find more democratic ways to control technology this powerful, and that it’s important to discuss that (remote) possibility, just as it’s valuable to discuss opposition to Israel.
Yes, no doubt about it. But I think that it’s still worth trying to understand why they hold those opinions, so that they may be corrected.
Ah, but ‘corrected’ in which direction? They want to be in blue tribe, but they consider its goals unconscionable. Their current position matches up well with the incentives laid out before them, even if it isn’t very effective at accomplishing anything.
If it is the archetypal “big government” in the standard conservative sense, then I would consider a third option.
I think the age of “big government” and “big business” as separate entities has been over for some time now. For example, after the 2016 election, the FBI and every large social media service moved in lockstep to completely restructure the internet, which is a substantial departure from the early 2010′s, when many tech companies explicitly picked fights with the government on issues surrounding privacy and civil liberties. “Managerial state” refers to this union of government institutions and employees that companies would be punished for not hiring, or for not listening to. At this point, the merger is sufficiently complete that, even if Trump waved a magic wand and completely restaffed every government bureau, the ancillaries at most companies would continue pushing in the same direction. A lot of jobs[1] at very nearly every major American company know that their position and salary amounts to spoils from this system, and that retaining those things entails suppressing opposition to it.
Certainly many in Blue Tribe would object to this framing, but ultimately, if pressed, they would acknowledge that it was a good thing that this happened, even if they do not acknowledge that it happened in the first place.
Most prominent Conservatives are also (loudly) pro-Israel, even if rank and file isn’t. The same pattern is seen in the Democrats: A new poll just came out claiming that 58% of Democrats now say the U.S. is “too supportive” of Israel.
I think it’s a matter of pushback. Dem opposition to Israel feels mostly performative (see the links in the prior post), with both politicians and rank and file primarily working to save face. Compare the Minneapolis riots to the rather tepid response to the Iran War, for instance. While Israel and neoconservatism are more unpopular than ever before, the Democrats’ voters have always been majority opposed to Israel, and the party establishment has always been able to make that a non-issue.
In contrast, the Republicans seem to have a genuine internal struggle. Backlash, firings, primaries, and personal fights over Israel exceed anything we see for any other issue, except perhaps immigration. Looking at the age brackets in the Massie primary, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that Democrats will be the de-facto pro-Israel party going forwards. While Trump certainly did not deliver on this, he did campaign on it in the past three elections, and his Democratic opponents likewise seemed willing to fill the role of the neoconservative, even when it likely lost them some votes on the margins. The age breakdowns between Massie and Gallrein primary voters[2] bear this out, Republicans under the age of 65 are frustrated enough at the behavior of neoconservatives that they’re willing to support a relatively weak candidate in vast numbers simply to be rid of them. It’s only a matter of time until the party changes guard.
I take the point to be about elite/base divergence, is that the intended comparison? Are you trying to say that, just like opposition to Israel, opposition to corporate control over powerful AI is politically helpless?
Not quite, but I think I could’ve phrased that section better. The idea is that “I’m e/acc for anti-elite reasons” is theoretically something a Red Triber and a Blue Triber could believe, but the Blue Tribe power structure would need to be completely dismantled for a Blue Triber with these beliefs to have any meaningful influence, whereas a Red Triber with these beliefs is well in line with his tribe’s interests, and can advance them simply by helping his tribe win in a general sense.
The woman who was fired for attempting to steal the Knicks-branded trash can is a good example. She would not have been making $300k with this resume in anything resembling a free market meritocracy, but the government did not explicitly say that her employer should hire her, specifically, as a political officer, as is done in China.
“In this metaphor, the people you mention would match up with the ‘tankies’ - small in number and smaller in influence” Yes, no doubt about it. But I think that it’s still worth trying to understand why they hold those opinions, so that they may be corrected.
Can you please clarify what you mean by managerial state? If it is the archetypal “big government” in the standard conservative sense, then I would consider a third option. They may see not government but private corporations wielding power over AGI/ASI as the chief harm. Fast acceleration of capabilities, but more importantly, fast proliferation of local model power could disrupt the frontier-lab monopoly power.
Thus, they are not as aligned with e/acc as they are with Vitalik Buterin’s d/acc. I think that is a meaningful distinction, since their wish seems to me the opposite of red-tribe : more government regulation and less corporate independence. Only the anti-elite culture war has some similarity. Democrats have proposed some AI risk management, but not anything close to calling for democratic/public control over AGI-scale power.
I think this is a meaningful distinction because I haven’t seen any conservatives or e/accs call for it either. Instead, they defend greater private control, even if sometimes more decentralized, but private all the same.
I don’t understand the comparison here. Most prominent Conservatives are also (loudly) pro-Israel, even if rank and file isn’t. The same pattern is seen in the Democrats: A new poll just came out claiming that 58% of Democrats now say the U.S. is “too supportive” of Israel. I take the point to be about elite/base divergence, is that the intended comparison? Are you trying to say that, just like opposition to Israel, opposition to corporate control over powerful AI is politically helpless?
I’m not a radical, but I do understand many of their grievances, such as this one. I also think we should find more democratic ways to control technology this powerful, and that it’s important to discuss that (remote) possibility, just as it’s valuable to discuss opposition to Israel.
Ah, but ‘corrected’ in which direction? They want to be in blue tribe, but they consider its goals unconscionable. Their current position matches up well with the incentives laid out before them, even if it isn’t very effective at accomplishing anything.
I think the age of “big government” and “big business” as separate entities has been over for some time now. For example, after the 2016 election, the FBI and every large social media service moved in lockstep to completely restructure the internet, which is a substantial departure from the early 2010′s, when many tech companies explicitly picked fights with the government on issues surrounding privacy and civil liberties. “Managerial state” refers to this union of government institutions and employees that companies would be punished for not hiring, or for not listening to. At this point, the merger is sufficiently complete that, even if Trump waved a magic wand and completely restaffed every government bureau, the ancillaries at most companies would continue pushing in the same direction. A lot of jobs[1] at very nearly every major American company know that their position and salary amounts to spoils from this system, and that retaining those things entails suppressing opposition to it.
Certainly many in Blue Tribe would object to this framing, but ultimately, if pressed, they would acknowledge that it was a good thing that this happened, even if they do not acknowledge that it happened in the first place.
I think it’s a matter of pushback. Dem opposition to Israel feels mostly performative (see the links in the prior post), with both politicians and rank and file primarily working to save face. Compare the Minneapolis riots to the rather tepid response to the Iran War, for instance. While Israel and neoconservatism are more unpopular than ever before, the Democrats’ voters have always been majority opposed to Israel, and the party establishment has always been able to make that a non-issue.
In contrast, the Republicans seem to have a genuine internal struggle. Backlash, firings, primaries, and personal fights over Israel exceed anything we see for any other issue, except perhaps immigration. Looking at the age brackets in the Massie primary, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that Democrats will be the de-facto pro-Israel party going forwards. While Trump certainly did not deliver on this, he did campaign on it in the past three elections, and his Democratic opponents likewise seemed willing to fill the role of the neoconservative, even when it likely lost them some votes on the margins. The age breakdowns between Massie and Gallrein primary voters[2] bear this out, Republicans under the age of 65 are frustrated enough at the behavior of neoconservatives that they’re willing to support a relatively weak candidate in vast numbers simply to be rid of them. It’s only a matter of time until the party changes guard.
Not quite, but I think I could’ve phrased that section better. The idea is that “I’m e/acc for anti-elite reasons” is theoretically something a Red Triber and a Blue Triber could believe, but the Blue Tribe power structure would need to be completely dismantled for a Blue Triber with these beliefs to have any meaningful influence, whereas a Red Triber with these beliefs is well in line with his tribe’s interests, and can advance them simply by helping his tribe win in a general sense.
The woman who was fired for attempting to steal the Knicks-branded trash can is a good example. She would not have been making $300k with this resume in anything resembling a free market meritocracy, but the government did not explicitly say that her employer should hire her, specifically, as a political officer, as is done in China.
Here. Forgive the heavily-branded image.