It seems like an unspoken rationalist view is that any force multiplier that is symmetric between good and bad actors is by default seen as bad.
In a worldview where you believe that the default is existential annihilation of the human race, I think this makes sense. If charisma is something that makes people more effective, and the default of making people more effective is to accelerate existential risk, it’s may make game theoretic sense to punish charisma, even if you’re also taking an effective tool away from yourself.
The rational way to deal with unspoken views is to speak them. I’d strongly disagree with this one—force multipliers are neither good nor bad in themselves. Some have more sharp edges than others. Some have a propensity to backfire and trick the user into sloppy thinking. I’m good with the semi-joking label “dark arts” as a shorthand for things that need extra care. This is very distinct from “good” or “bad”.
’d strongly disagree with this one—force multipliers are neither good nor bad in themselves.
I think this strongly depends on how long a game you’re playing and how long you have.
In this particular case I think you’re correct. If your timelines are very long perhaps it makes sense to set up a culture where symmetric weapons are punished.
Logical debate has one advantage over narrative, rhetoric, and violence: it’s an asymmetric weapon. That is, it’s a weapon which is stronger in the hands of the good guys than in the hands of the bad guys...
The whole point of logic is that, when done right, it can only prove things that are true.
Violence is a symmetric weapon; the bad guys’ punches hit just as hard as the good guys’ do...
Violence itself… if anything, [decreases asymmetry] by giving an advantage to whoever is more ruthless and power-hungry.
It seems like an unspoken rationalist view is that any force multiplier that is symmetric between good and bad actors is by default seen as bad.
In a worldview where you believe that the default is existential annihilation of the human race, I think this makes sense. If charisma is something that makes people more effective, and the default of making people more effective is to accelerate existential risk, it’s may make game theoretic sense to punish charisma, even if you’re also taking an effective tool away from yourself.
The rational way to deal with unspoken views is to speak them. I’d strongly disagree with this one—force multipliers are neither good nor bad in themselves. Some have more sharp edges than others. Some have a propensity to backfire and trick the user into sloppy thinking. I’m good with the semi-joking label “dark arts” as a shorthand for things that need extra care. This is very distinct from “good” or “bad”.
I think this strongly depends on how long a game you’re playing and how long you have.
In this particular case I think you’re correct. If your timelines are very long perhaps it makes sense to set up a culture where symmetric weapons are punished.
Though the most likely outcome of this seems to be that one just ends up hurting their own side much more than one does the bad actors.
Yes,and I think this has happened with certain pockets of the rationalists.
Unspoken? There’s an SSC post explicitly about this.