I observe that the optimal method of spotting hazards—not having a blindfold—corresponds to having an accurate world-model. In other words, more rationality!
My other observation is that, in the cases where the posts are people, they are optimizing against you the same way you’re trying to optimize against them, which is exactly the runaway escalation that seems to lead to our current intelligence. (Those pictures above are a lot messier when the post tries to hit you.)
I wonder if the skill of hazard-perception (or world-modelling, or map-territory accuracy) has a general advantage or disadvantage against deception (the borderline/psychopaths/scammers), similar to how, at different points in history, fortifications had an advantage or disadvantage against artillery.
I’m curious: what definition of the terms “hazard-perception” and “deception” would give rise to a disadvantage to those who have better hazard protection? This seems to me to be certainly false for the obvious definitions.
I meant to use “disadvantage” to gesture more generally to the way certain strategies in warfare dominate others at various times, based on the technologies available at those times.
For instance, fortifications/defense tended to dominate sieges/offense until cannons became sufficiently used/widespread/accurate/powerful, at which point walls no longer conferred the same sort of advantage.
To bring the metaphor to rationality, if we think of “hazard-perception” as a skill and “deception” as a skill, which side do our current technologies favor?
The internet seems to favor hazard-perception (as in, gives it an advantage over deception), due to the availability of information (search engines, Wikipedia, etc.), but social media seems to favor deception (Facebook, TikTok, etc. create information cascades and echo chambers).
I observe that the optimal method of spotting hazards—not having a blindfold—corresponds to having an accurate world-model. In other words, more rationality!
My other observation is that, in the cases where the posts are people, they are optimizing against you the same way you’re trying to optimize against them, which is exactly the runaway escalation that seems to lead to our current intelligence. (Those pictures above are a lot messier when the post tries to hit you.)
I wonder if the skill of hazard-perception (or world-modelling, or map-territory accuracy) has a general advantage or disadvantage against deception (the borderline/psychopaths/scammers), similar to how, at different points in history, fortifications had an advantage or disadvantage against artillery.
I’m curious: what definition of the terms “hazard-perception” and “deception” would give rise to a disadvantage to those who have better hazard protection? This seems to me to be certainly false for the obvious definitions.
I meant to use “disadvantage” to gesture more generally to the way certain strategies in warfare dominate others at various times, based on the technologies available at those times.
For instance, fortifications/defense tended to dominate sieges/offense until cannons became sufficiently used/widespread/accurate/powerful, at which point walls no longer conferred the same sort of advantage.
To bring the metaphor to rationality, if we think of “hazard-perception” as a skill and “deception” as a skill, which side do our current technologies favor?
The internet seems to favor hazard-perception (as in, gives it an advantage over deception), due to the availability of information (search engines, Wikipedia, etc.), but social media seems to favor deception (Facebook, TikTok, etc. create information cascades and echo chambers).