While I overall share the preference for Wizard power over King power for aesthetic and moral reasons, I don’t think that Wizard power is a more effective way to gain real power than King power.
I think a King’s power is largely real: they can cause wars and collect taxes etc. And I think King power sums up to a much larger amount of real power in today’s world than Wizard power. I think the consideration of whether you’re fake-leading the parade only goes so far. Social leaders still have a substantially larger voices with which to steer the parade than everyone else. Especially in the age of AGI, leaders may no longer need to respect the values of most people because they’re not economically relevant. You may worry about losing King power over a more Wizard-powerful AI, but unfortunately it’s pretty intractable to outrace AI in gaining Wizard power without utilizing substantial King power.
Psychologizing a bit, I think the thing that people resonate with most about Wizard power is becoming intellectually formidable, epistemically rational, and capable—people here, including myself, have a lot of Carlsmith blue in them aesthetically, and tend to terminally value epistemic rationality.
Especially in the age of AGI, leaders may no longer need to respect the values of most people because they’re not economically relevant.
Or militarily relevant. Traditionally, if you were a ruler, you had to at least keep your army happy. However, if you command an entirely automated army that doesn’t have any actual people in it, there’s no risk of the army turning against you. You have the robot weapons and nobody else does, so you can do whatever the hell you want to people without having to care what anyone else thinks.
When the king is aligned with the kingdom, how would you distinguish the causal path that the king projected their power and their values onto the kingdom (that previously had different values or was a tabula rasa) and not that the kingdom had selected from a pool of potential kings?
After all, regicide was not that uncommon (both literally in the past and figuratively speaking when a mother company can dismiss a decision of a board of directors over who should be the CEO)...
(I’m not saying anything about Wizard power being more or less effective)
I think the King has real power whether or not they were elected/selected, in the same way that you have free will whether or not your actions can be predicted.
But if the King has to worry about regicide then that reduces the King’s power, because now the King has fewer options.
While I overall share the preference for Wizard power over King power for aesthetic and moral reasons, I don’t think that Wizard power is a more effective way to gain real power than King power.
I think a King’s power is largely real: they can cause wars and collect taxes etc. And I think King power sums up to a much larger amount of real power in today’s world than Wizard power. I think the consideration of whether you’re fake-leading the parade only goes so far. Social leaders still have a substantially larger voices with which to steer the parade than everyone else. Especially in the age of AGI, leaders may no longer need to respect the values of most people because they’re not economically relevant. You may worry about losing King power over a more Wizard-powerful AI, but unfortunately it’s pretty intractable to outrace AI in gaining Wizard power without utilizing substantial King power.
Psychologizing a bit, I think the thing that people resonate with most about Wizard power is becoming intellectually formidable, epistemically rational, and capable—people here, including myself, have a lot of Carlsmith blue in them aesthetically, and tend to terminally value epistemic rationality.
Or militarily relevant. Traditionally, if you were a ruler, you had to at least keep your army happy. However, if you command an entirely automated army that doesn’t have any actual people in it, there’s no risk of the army turning against you. You have the robot weapons and nobody else does, so you can do whatever the hell you want to people without having to care what anyone else thinks.
Noah Smith elaborates.
When the king is aligned with the kingdom, how would you distinguish the causal path that the king projected their power and their values onto the kingdom (that previously had different values or was a tabula rasa) and not that the kingdom had selected from a pool of potential kings?
After all, regicide was not that uncommon (both literally in the past and figuratively speaking when a mother company can dismiss a decision of a board of directors over who should be the CEO)...
(I’m not saying anything about Wizard power being more or less effective)
I think the King has real power whether or not they were elected/selected, in the same way that you have free will whether or not your actions can be predicted.
But if the King has to worry about regicide then that reduces the King’s power, because now the King has fewer options.