I think you probably don’t have the right model of what motivated the reception. “AGI will lead to human extinction and will be built because of capitalism” seems to me like a pretty mainstream position on LessWrong. In fact I strongly suspect this is exactly what Eliezer Yudkowsky believes. The extinction part has been well-articulated, and the capitalism part is what I would have assumed is the unspoken background assumption. Like, yeah, if we didn’t have a capitalist system, then the entire point about profit motives, pride, and race dynamics wouldn’t apply. So… yeah, I don’t think this idea is very controversial on LW (reddit is a different story).
I think the reason that your posts got rejected is that the focus doesn’t seem useful. Getting rid of capitalism isn’t tractable, so what is gained by focusing on this part of the causal chain? I think that’s the part your missing. And because this site is very anti-[political content], you need a very good reason to focus on politics. So I’d guess that what happened is that people saw the argument, thought it was political and not-useful, and consequently downvoted.
Exactly. That’s the point I’ve been making—this isn’t about capitalism as an ideology, it’s about competition. Capitalism is just the most efficient competitive structure we’ve developed, so it accelerates the outcome. But any decentralised system with multiple actors racing for advantage—whether nation-states or corporations—will ultimately produce the same incentives. That’s the core of the argument.
My idea is not mainstream, although I’ve heard that claim a few times. But whenever I ask people to show me where this argument—that AGI extinction is structurally inevitable due to capitalist competition—has been laid out before, no one can point to anything. What I get instead is vague hand-waving and references to ideas that aren’t what I’m arguing.
Most people say capitalism makes alignment harder. I’m saying it makes alignment structurally impossible. That’s a different claim. And as far as I can tell, a novel one.
If people downvoted because they thought the argument wasn’t useful, fine—but then why did no one say that? Why not critique the focus or offer a counter? What actually happened was silence, followed by downvotes. That’s not rational filtering. That’s emotional rejection.
And if you had read the essay, you’d know it isn’t political. I don’t blame capitalism in a moral sense. I describe a system, and then I show the consequences that follow from its incentives. Socialism or communism could’ve built AGI too—just probably slower. The point isn’t to attack capitalism. It’s to explain how a system optimised for competition inevitably builds the thing that kills us.
So if I understand you correctly: you didn’t read the essay, and you’re explaining that other people who also didn’t read the essay dismissed it as “political” because they didn’t read it.
Meditations on Moloch is an excellent piece—but it’s not the argument I’m making.
Scott describes how competition leads to suboptimal outcomes, yes. But he stops at describing the problem. He doesn’t draw the specific conclusion that AGI alignment is structurally impossible because any attempt to slow down or “align” will be outcompeted by systems that don’t bother. He also doesn’t apply that conclusion to the AGI race with the same blunt finality I do: this ends in extinction, and it cannot be stopped.
So unless you can point to the section where Scott actually follows the AGI race dynamics to the conclusion that alignment will be systematically optimised away—rather than just made “more difficult”—then no, that essay doesn’t make my argument. It covers part of the background context. That’s not the same thing.
This kind of reply—“here’s a famous link that kind of gestures in the direction of what you’re talking about”—is exactly the vague dismissal I’ve been calling out. If my argument really has been made before, someone should be able to point to where it’s clearly laid out.
So far, no one has. The sidestepping and lack of direct engagement in my arguments in this comment section alone has to be studied.
If people downvoted because they thought the argument wasn’t useful, fine—but then why did no one say that? Why not critique the focus or offer a counter? What actually happened was silence, followed by downvotes. That’s not rational filtering. That’s emotional rejection.
Yeah, I do not endorse the reaction. The situation pattern-matches to other cases where someone new writes things that are so confusing and all over the place that making them ditch the community (which is often the result of excessive downvoting) is arguably a good thing. But I don’t think this was the case here. Your essays look to me to be coherent (and also probably correct). I hadn’t seen any of them before this post but I wouldn’t have downvoted. My model is that most people are not super strategic about this kind of thing and just go “talking politics → bad” without really thinking through whether demotivating the author is good in this case.
So if I understand you correctly: you didn’t read the essay, and you’re explaining that other people who also didn’t read the essay dismissed it as “political” because they didn’t read it.
Yes—from looking at it, it seems like it’s something I agree with (or if not, disagree for reasons that I’m almost certain won’t be addressed in the text), so I didn’t see a reason to read. I mean reading is a time investment, you have to give me a reason to invest that time, that’s how it works. But I thought the (lack of) reaction was unjustified, so I wanted to give you a better model of what happened, which also doesn’t take too much time.
Most people say capitalism makes alignment harder. I’m saying it makes alignment structurally impossible.
The point isn’t to attack capitalism. It’s to explain how a system optimised for competition inevitably builds the thing that kills us.
I mean that’s all fine, but those are nuances which only become relevant after people read, so it doesn’t really change the dynamic I’ve outlined. You have to give people a reason to read first, and then put more nuances into the text. Idk if this helps but I’ve learned this lesson the hard way by spending a ridiculous amount of time on a huge post that was almost entirely ignored (this was several years ago).
(It seems like you got some reactions now fwiw, hope this may make you reconsider leaving.)
I appreciate your response, and I’m sorry about the downvotes you got from seeming supportive.
I take your point about getting people to read, but I guess the issue is that the only way you can reliably do that is by being an accepted/popular member of the community. And, as a new member, that would be impossible for me. This would be fine on a high school cheerleading forum, but it seems out of place on a forum that claims to value ideas and reason.
I will still be leaving, but, as a result of this post, I actually have one more post to make. A final final post. And it will not be popular but it will be eye opening. Due to my karma score I can’t post it until next Monday, so keep an eye out for it if you’re interested.
I think you probably don’t have the right model of what motivated the reception. “AGI will lead to human extinction and will be built because of capitalism” seems to me like a pretty mainstream position on LessWrong. In fact I strongly suspect this is exactly what Eliezer Yudkowsky believes. The extinction part has been well-articulated, and the capitalism part is what I would have assumed is the unspoken background assumption. Like, yeah, if we didn’t have a capitalist system, then the entire point about profit motives, pride, and race dynamics wouldn’t apply. So… yeah, I don’t think this idea is very controversial on LW (reddit is a different story).
I think the reason that your posts got rejected is that the focus doesn’t seem useful. Getting rid of capitalism isn’t tractable, so what is gained by focusing on this part of the causal chain? I think that’s the part your missing. And because this site is very anti-[political content], you need a very good reason to focus on politics. So I’d guess that what happened is that people saw the argument, thought it was political and not-useful, and consequently downvoted.
Presence of many nations without a central authority still contributes to race dynamics.
Yeah, valid correction.
Exactly. That’s the point I’ve been making—this isn’t about capitalism as an ideology, it’s about competition. Capitalism is just the most efficient competitive structure we’ve developed, so it accelerates the outcome. But any decentralised system with multiple actors racing for advantage—whether nation-states or corporations—will ultimately produce the same incentives. That’s the core of the argument.
My idea is not mainstream, although I’ve heard that claim a few times. But whenever I ask people to show me where this argument—that AGI extinction is structurally inevitable due to capitalist competition—has been laid out before, no one can point to anything. What I get instead is vague hand-waving and references to ideas that aren’t what I’m arguing.
Most people say capitalism makes alignment harder. I’m saying it makes alignment structurally impossible. That’s a different claim. And as far as I can tell, a novel one.
If people downvoted because they thought the argument wasn’t useful, fine—but then why did no one say that? Why not critique the focus or offer a counter? What actually happened was silence, followed by downvotes. That’s not rational filtering. That’s emotional rejection.
And if you had read the essay, you’d know it isn’t political. I don’t blame capitalism in a moral sense. I describe a system, and then I show the consequences that follow from its incentives. Socialism or communism could’ve built AGI too—just probably slower. The point isn’t to attack capitalism. It’s to explain how a system optimised for competition inevitably builds the thing that kills us.
So if I understand you correctly: you didn’t read the essay, and you’re explaining that other people who also didn’t read the essay dismissed it as “political” because they didn’t read it.
Yes. That’s exactly my point. Thank you.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
It’s “mainstream” here, described well many times before.
Meditations on Moloch is an excellent piece—but it’s not the argument I’m making.
Scott describes how competition leads to suboptimal outcomes, yes. But he stops at describing the problem. He doesn’t draw the specific conclusion that AGI alignment is structurally impossible because any attempt to slow down or “align” will be outcompeted by systems that don’t bother. He also doesn’t apply that conclusion to the AGI race with the same blunt finality I do: this ends in extinction, and it cannot be stopped.
So unless you can point to the section where Scott actually follows the AGI race dynamics to the conclusion that alignment will be systematically optimised away—rather than just made “more difficult”—then no, that essay doesn’t make my argument. It covers part of the background context. That’s not the same thing.
This kind of reply—“here’s a famous link that kind of gestures in the direction of what you’re talking about”—is exactly the vague dismissal I’ve been calling out. If my argument really has been made before, someone should be able to point to where it’s clearly laid out.
So far, no one has. The sidestepping and lack of direct engagement in my arguments in this comment section alone has to be studied.
Yeah, I do not endorse the reaction. The situation pattern-matches to other cases where someone new writes things that are so confusing and all over the place that making them ditch the community (which is often the result of excessive downvoting) is arguably a good thing. But I don’t think this was the case here. Your essays look to me to be coherent (and also probably correct). I hadn’t seen any of them before this post but I wouldn’t have downvoted. My model is that most people are not super strategic about this kind of thing and just go “talking politics → bad” without really thinking through whether demotivating the author is good in this case.
Yes—from looking at it, it seems like it’s something I agree with (or if not, disagree for reasons that I’m almost certain won’t be addressed in the text), so I didn’t see a reason to read. I mean reading is a time investment, you have to give me a reason to invest that time, that’s how it works. But I thought the (lack of) reaction was unjustified, so I wanted to give you a better model of what happened, which also doesn’t take too much time.
I mean that’s all fine, but those are nuances which only become relevant after people read, so it doesn’t really change the dynamic I’ve outlined. You have to give people a reason to read first, and then put more nuances into the text. Idk if this helps but I’ve learned this lesson the hard way by spending a ridiculous amount of time on a huge post that was almost entirely ignored (this was several years ago).
(It seems like you got some reactions now fwiw, hope this may make you reconsider leaving.)
I appreciate your response, and I’m sorry about the downvotes you got from seeming supportive.
I take your point about getting people to read, but I guess the issue is that the only way you can reliably do that is by being an accepted/popular member of the community. And, as a new member, that would be impossible for me. This would be fine on a high school cheerleading forum, but it seems out of place on a forum that claims to value ideas and reason.
I will still be leaving, but, as a result of this post, I actually have one more post to make. A final final post. And it will not be popular but it will be eye opening. Due to my karma score I can’t post it until next Monday, so keep an eye out for it if you’re interested.