Thank you! I agree. Things called “zero-sum” often become something else when we also consider their impact on third parties, i.e. when we model them as games of 3 players (Player 1, Player 2, World). It may be that the actions of Player 1 negate the actions of Player 2 from their relative perspectives (if we are in a running competition, and I start running faster, I get an advantage, but if you also start running faster, my advantage is lost), but both work in the same direction from the perspective of the World (if both of us run faster, the competition is more interesting to watch for the audience).
In some status games the effect on the third party is mostly “resources are wasted”. (I try to buy a larger gold chain, you try to buy a larger gold chain, resources are wasted on mining gold and making chains.)
But if we compete at producing value for the third party, whether it is making jokes, or signaling wealth by sending money to charity, the effect on the third party is the value produced. Such games are good! If we could make producing value for the third party the only status game in town, the world would probably be a much nicer place.
That said, the concept of “useful” seems intrinsically related to “scarcity”. The laborer in Egypt does something that wouldn’t get done otherwise (or it would get done anyway, but at the cost of something else not done). If we get to see a positive singularity, some kind of future where all important things get done by a Friendly AI, then only the unimportant things are left for us. For example, the AI will provide healthcare, and we will play computer games. (I wanted to say ”...and we will make art or tell jokes”, but actually the AI will be able to do that much better; unless we choose to ignore that, and make sure that no human in our group is cheating by asking the AI for help.)
The possibility of a coup is, of course, a two-sided coin. If things can get surprisingly better, they can also get surprisingly worse. If all possibilities are open, then so is also the possibility of Hell. Someone will try to find a way to sacrifice everything to Moloch in return for being the ruler of the Hell. So other people will have to spend a lot of time trying to prevent that, and we get a sword of Damocles above our heads.
The possibility of a coup is, of course, a two-sided coin. If things can get surprisingly better, they can also get surprisingly worse.
I have long wanted a society where there is a “constitutional monarchy” position that is high status and a magnet for interesting political skirmishes but doesn’t have much control over public policy, and alongside that a “head of government” who is a boring accountant type and by law doesn’t get invited to any of the interesting parties or fly around in a fancy jet.
Thank you! I agree. Things called “zero-sum” often become something else when we also consider their impact on third parties, i.e. when we model them as games of 3 players (Player 1, Player 2, World). It may be that the actions of Player 1 negate the actions of Player 2 from their relative perspectives (if we are in a running competition, and I start running faster, I get an advantage, but if you also start running faster, my advantage is lost), but both work in the same direction from the perspective of the World (if both of us run faster, the competition is more interesting to watch for the audience).
In some status games the effect on the third party is mostly “resources are wasted”. (I try to buy a larger gold chain, you try to buy a larger gold chain, resources are wasted on mining gold and making chains.)
But if we compete at producing value for the third party, whether it is making jokes, or signaling wealth by sending money to charity, the effect on the third party is the value produced. Such games are good! If we could make producing value for the third party the only status game in town, the world would probably be a much nicer place.
That said, the concept of “useful” seems intrinsically related to “scarcity”. The laborer in Egypt does something that wouldn’t get done otherwise (or it would get done anyway, but at the cost of something else not done). If we get to see a positive singularity, some kind of future where all important things get done by a Friendly AI, then only the unimportant things are left for us. For example, the AI will provide healthcare, and we will play computer games. (I wanted to say ”...and we will make art or tell jokes”, but actually the AI will be able to do that much better; unless we choose to ignore that, and make sure that no human in our group is cheating by asking the AI for help.)
The possibility of a coup is, of course, a two-sided coin. If things can get surprisingly better, they can also get surprisingly worse. If all possibilities are open, then so is also the possibility of Hell. Someone will try to find a way to sacrifice everything to Moloch in return for being the ruler of the Hell. So other people will have to spend a lot of time trying to prevent that, and we get a sword of Damocles above our heads.
I have long wanted a society where there is a “constitutional monarchy” position that is high status and a magnet for interesting political skirmishes but doesn’t have much control over public policy, and alongside that a “head of government” who is a boring accountant type and by law doesn’t get invited to any of the interesting parties or fly around in a fancy jet.