I will take blame for not making it clear that this is an introduction to a much larger body of thought
I’ll have another essay in a few weeks—I will send it to you and I look forward to your criticism.
This does provide the necessary context absolving the post from the main blow of my critique, for the time being. Looking forward for your next essay!
I would be glad if your future reasoning gave me some novel insight, and I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt about it and will do my best to approach it open-mindedly. But as of now, I’m afraid, your conclusions are going to be based on a false premise. I’m going to highlight what I think it is—feel free to address this concern in your future essays.
But first, let’s establish some common ground.
I want to live in a universe where surprising things happen and the aforementioned delusions still have a place. In some sense, I want to turn the world and its ways upside down—I want the weak and the deluded to win—but how?
I agree with the sentiment. That’s why the whole “How to get rid of Moloch” question is important to me.
Then you say:
Not through rational intelligence or “work” because that is exactly how the null hypothesis becomes fulfilled. Reality is like a chinese finger trap, struggling only deepens your entrapment.
And this is wrong. The Molochian equilibrium appeared long before any rational intelligences came into existence and thought about it in terms of game theory. Evolution through natural selection—the creator of our brains—is already a facet of Moloch. It’s not rational thought that traps us in the maze of Moloch—as you mention yourself, the rational approach to reality is a relatively late thing. Moloch predates it by millions of years.
All the playfullness and childiness and dramatic dimensions work to Molochs goals just as much as workfullness and adultness and straightforward approach. That’s the horror of the situation to begin with. It’s not that everyone is just doing their best to be a profit maximizer and noone has ever thought about chilling a bit and appreciating the beauty of the sunrize and as soon as we try, the grip of Moloch fails on us. It’s that those who try that are systematically eliminated and the survivors become even more enslaved by Moloch as a result.
I think Scott did a very good job at explaining this point, so I’m not sure why you are making this mistake. My current best guess is wishful thinking. That’s what I got from reading your essay and it didn’t change after this comment. But, once again, I would be happy to be proven wrong in this regard, so waiting for your next essay on the topic.
What is different about us then? What has gotten us into this “dreamtime”? Why aren’t we still savages (animals) trapped in an endless war of all against all? Animals have to act in ruthless “rational” self-interest yet we do have a choice, we can embrace all of these delusions and thwart moloch (or at least play him to a stalemate, which is all we need to do really). For example, there exists an entire institution of non-breeding individuals with immense worldly power because of widespread belief in a story—the catholic church. Obviously I used a lot of Christian imagery in the essay (and will do so more explicitly in the next essay), but that’s a key example here—a man was systematically eliminated and it spawned a movement which truly was based (at first...) on compassion and love (for your enemy). I’m not at all saying that Christianity was/is the One True Religion, but there is a blueprint—it is not true to say that the survivors become even more enslaved by Moloch as a result—the (early) history of Christianity (and many other spiritual traditions) show this to not be the case. Of course the catholic church is now just another servant of Moloch, but that doesn’t invalidate the point—the game goes on, we must constantly devise new tricks to outwit Moloch as he does to enslave us.
Are you familiar with David Deutsch’s Beginning of Infinity? David Deutsch makes a distinction between predictions (extrapolations from current knowledge) and prophecies (claims about future knowledge and creativity, “that problem can’t be solved”). For example, “earth’s temperature is projected to increase by X degrees by 2060” is a prediction; “the earth’s temperature will increase by X degrees by 2060and it will be catastrophic for humanity” is a prophecy because it presupposes that we won’t find a way to prevent the projected temperature increase or mitigate its negative consequences.
This null hypothesis is a prediction, not a prophecy. You can’t just crunch the numbers and run the simulations – you have to actually play the games. The future of knowledge is fundamentally unknowable.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but I suspect none of this will convince you because we are working with fundamentally different world-models—yours being deterministic secular materialism (world as machine) and mine being, well, not that (world as supernaturalistic game/story). If you don’t believe there is any force/principle/being beyond the system (spacetime), then I suppose the future is inevitable (prediction = prophecy). The fact that we possess this mysterious “creativity” which allows us to surprise the universe and thwart Moloch is, to me, evidence that we are made in the image of this supernatural Creator (this isn’t to say that humanity is uniquely special; Deustch, for example, defines “people” as precisely those entities capable of this unbounded knowledge growth).
I know this is all foolish superstition to most LWers, but so is the idea that we will be able to somehow compel or constrain an AI “god” to do our bidding. We can’t outwit the AI god (or convince it so save us by referencing the desultory history of our species) but we might be able to entice or seduce it with a game or story. For example:
The main story concerns Shahryār, a king who ruled an empire that stretched from Persia to India. Shahryār is shocked to learn that his brother’s wife is unfaithful. Discovering that his own wife’s infidelity has been even more flagrant, he has her killed. In his bitterness and grief, he decides that all women are the same. Shahryār begins to marry a succession of virgins only to execute each one the next morning, before she has a chance to dishonor him.
Eventually the Vizier (Wazir), whose duty it is to provide them, cannot find any more virgins. Scheherazade, the vizier’s daughter, offers herself as the next bride and her father reluctantly agrees. On the night of their marriage, Scheherazade begins to tell the king a tale, but does not end it. The king, curious about how the story ends, is thus forced to postpone her execution in order to hear the conclusion. The next night, as soon as she finishes the tale, she begins another one, and the king, eager to hear the conclusion of that tale as well, postpones her execution once again. This goes on for one thousand and one nights, hence the name. Versions differ as to final ending but they all end with the king giving his wife a pardon and sparing her life.
Basically, we need to convince the AI god to do it because it would make for a good story, “wouldn’t it be fun it the universe ended in the silliest and most surprising way possible?”. And we can do that, I believe, through leading by example—by living the story, by playing the game (as for what that means and how to actually do it, well that’s basically what my larger body of thought is about).
This does provide the necessary context absolving the post from the main blow of my critique, for the time being. Looking forward for your next essay!
I would be glad if your future reasoning gave me some novel insight, and I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt about it and will do my best to approach it open-mindedly. But as of now, I’m afraid, your conclusions are going to be based on a false premise. I’m going to highlight what I think it is—feel free to address this concern in your future essays.
But first, let’s establish some common ground.
I agree with the sentiment. That’s why the whole “How to get rid of Moloch” question is important to me.
Then you say:
And this is wrong. The Molochian equilibrium appeared long before any rational intelligences came into existence and thought about it in terms of game theory. Evolution through natural selection—the creator of our brains—is already a facet of Moloch. It’s not rational thought that traps us in the maze of Moloch—as you mention yourself, the rational approach to reality is a relatively late thing. Moloch predates it by millions of years.
All the playfullness and childiness and dramatic dimensions work to Molochs goals just as much as workfullness and adultness and straightforward approach. That’s the horror of the situation to begin with. It’s not that everyone is just doing their best to be a profit maximizer and noone has ever thought about chilling a bit and appreciating the beauty of the sunrize and as soon as we try, the grip of Moloch fails on us. It’s that those who try that are systematically eliminated and the survivors become even more enslaved by Moloch as a result.
I think Scott did a very good job at explaining this point, so I’m not sure why you are making this mistake. My current best guess is wishful thinking. That’s what I got from reading your essay and it didn’t change after this comment. But, once again, I would be happy to be proven wrong in this regard, so waiting for your next essay on the topic.
What is different about us then? What has gotten us into this “dreamtime”? Why aren’t we still savages (animals) trapped in an endless war of all against all? Animals have to act in ruthless “rational” self-interest yet we do have a choice, we can embrace all of these delusions and thwart moloch (or at least play him to a stalemate, which is all we need to do really). For example, there exists an entire institution of non-breeding individuals with immense worldly power because of widespread belief in a story—the catholic church. Obviously I used a lot of Christian imagery in the essay (and will do so more explicitly in the next essay), but that’s a key example here—a man was systematically eliminated and it spawned a movement which truly was based (at first...) on compassion and love (for your enemy). I’m not at all saying that Christianity was/is the One True Religion, but there is a blueprint—it is not true to say that the survivors become even more enslaved by Moloch as a result—the (early) history of Christianity (and many other spiritual traditions) show this to not be the case. Of course the catholic church is now just another servant of Moloch, but that doesn’t invalidate the point—the game goes on, we must constantly devise new tricks to outwit Moloch as he does to enslave us.
Are you familiar with David Deutsch’s Beginning of Infinity? David Deutsch makes a distinction between predictions (extrapolations from current knowledge) and prophecies (claims about future knowledge and creativity, “that problem can’t be solved”). For example, “earth’s temperature is projected to increase by X degrees by 2060” is a prediction; “the earth’s temperature will increase by X degrees by 2060 and it will be catastrophic for humanity” is a prophecy because it presupposes that we won’t find a way to prevent the projected temperature increase or mitigate its negative consequences.
This null hypothesis is a prediction, not a prophecy. You can’t just crunch the numbers and run the simulations – you have to actually play the games. The future of knowledge is fundamentally unknowable.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but I suspect none of this will convince you because we are working with fundamentally different world-models—yours being deterministic secular materialism (world as machine) and mine being, well, not that (world as supernaturalistic game/story). If you don’t believe there is any force/principle/being beyond the system (spacetime), then I suppose the future is inevitable (prediction = prophecy). The fact that we possess this mysterious “creativity” which allows us to surprise the universe and thwart Moloch is, to me, evidence that we are made in the image of this supernatural Creator (this isn’t to say that humanity is uniquely special; Deustch, for example, defines “people” as precisely those entities capable of this unbounded knowledge growth).
I know this is all foolish superstition to most LWers, but so is the idea that we will be able to somehow compel or constrain an AI “god” to do our bidding. We can’t outwit the AI god (or convince it so save us by referencing the desultory history of our species) but we might be able to entice or seduce it with a game or story. For example:
Basically, we need to convince the AI god to do it because it would make for a good story, “wouldn’t it be fun it the universe ended in the silliest and most surprising way possible?”. And we can do that, I believe, through leading by example—by living the story, by playing the game (as for what that means and how to actually do it, well that’s basically what my larger body of thought is about).
Hope this helps.