see the back and forth with Ape in the coat below for further discussion
rogersbacon
Karma: 496
What is different about us then? What has gotten us into this “dreamtime”? Why aren’t we still savages (animals) trapped in an endless war of all against all? Animals have to act in ruthless “rational” self-interest yet we do have a choice, we can embrace all of these delusions and thwart moloch (or at least play him to a stalemate, which is all we need to do really). For example, there exists an entire institution of non-breeding individuals with immense worldly power because of widespread belief in a story—the catholic church. Obviously I used a lot of Christian imagery in the essay (and will do so more explicitly in the next essay), but that’s a key example here—a man was systematically eliminated and it spawned a movement which truly was based (at first...) on compassion and love (for your enemy). I’m not at all saying that Christianity was/is the One True Religion, but there is a blueprint—it is not true to say that the survivors become even more enslaved by Moloch as a result—the (early) history of Christianity (and many other spiritual traditions) show this to not be the case. Of course the catholic church is now just another servant of Moloch, but that doesn’t invalidate the point—the game goes on, we must constantly devise new tricks to outwit Moloch as he does to enslave us.
Are you familiar with David Deutsch’s Beginning of Infinity? David Deutsch makes a distinction between predictions (extrapolations from current knowledge) and prophecies (claims about future knowledge and creativity, “that problem can’t be solved”). For example, “earth’s temperature is projected to increase by X degrees by 2060” is a prediction; “the earth’s temperature will increase by X degrees by 2060 and it will be catastrophic for humanity” is a prophecy because it presupposes that we won’t find a way to prevent the projected temperature increase or mitigate its negative consequences.
This null hypothesis is a prediction, not a prophecy. You can’t just crunch the numbers and run the simulations – you have to actually play the games. The future of knowledge is fundamentally unknowable.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but I suspect none of this will convince you because we are working with fundamentally different world-models—yours being deterministic secular materialism (world as machine) and mine being, well, not that (world as supernaturalistic game/story). If you don’t believe there is any force/principle/being beyond the system (spacetime), then I suppose the future is inevitable (prediction = prophecy). The fact that we possess this mysterious “creativity” which allows us to surprise the universe and thwart Moloch is, to me, evidence that we are made in the image of this supernatural Creator (this isn’t to say that humanity is uniquely special; Deustch, for example, defines “people” as precisely those entities capable of this unbounded knowledge growth).I know this is all foolish superstition to most LWers, but so is the idea that we will be able to somehow compel or constrain an AI “god” to do our bidding. We can’t outwit the AI god (or convince it so save us by referencing the desultory history of our species) but we might be able to entice or seduce it with a game or story. For example:
The main story concerns Shahryār, a king who ruled an empire that stretched from Persia to India. Shahryār is shocked to learn that his brother’s wife is unfaithful. Discovering that his own wife’s infidelity has been even more flagrant, he has her killed. In his bitterness and grief, he decides that all women are the same. Shahryār begins to marry a succession of virgins only to execute each one the next morning, before she has a chance to dishonor him.
Eventually the Vizier (Wazir), whose duty it is to provide them, cannot find any more virgins. Scheherazade, the vizier’s daughter, offers herself as the next bride and her father reluctantly agrees. On the night of their marriage, Scheherazade begins to tell the king a tale, but does not end it. The king, curious about how the story ends, is thus forced to postpone her execution in order to hear the conclusion. The next night, as soon as she finishes the tale, she begins another one, and the king, eager to hear the conclusion of that tale as well, postpones her execution once again. This goes on for one thousand and one nights, hence the name. Versions differ as to final ending but they all end with the king giving his wife a pardon and sparing her life.
Basically, we need to convince the AI god to do it because it would make for a good story, “wouldn’t it be fun it the universe ended in the silliest and most surprising way possible?”. And we can do that, I believe, through leading by example—by living the story, by playing the game (as for what that means and how to actually do it, well that’s basically what my larger body of thought is about).
Hope this helps.
No worries—critique/feedback are much appreciated.
I will take blame for not making it clear that this is an introduction to a much larger body of thought. If there is a vagueness and incompleteness to it, that’s because it’s one essay and not the full book.
Here is a comment I made on my blog that more directly explains my thesis.
“Game theory and evolution give us pretty clear null hypothesis for the future and it ain’t pretty—the strongest always survive, the mighty are always righty. Weakness and “delusion” (e.g. art, spirituality, love, mercy, compassion) get optimized out of existence as the number of competing agents asymptotes towards infinite; similarly, as technological power asymptotes towards infinity so does infinite corruption.That sucks. More than anything, it’s just fucking boring—nothing surprising ever happens, the underdog never wins, the story always ends the same way. But this is just a null hypothesis—as they say, you don’t play the games on paper.
I want to live in a universe where surprising things happen and the aforementioned delusions still have a place. In some sense, I want to turn the world and its ways upside down—I want the weak and the deluded to win—but how? Not through rational intelligence or “work” because that is exactly how the null hypothesis becomes fulfilled. Reality is like a chinese finger trap, struggling only deepens your entrapment.
Workfulness/playfulness, adultiness/childliness—all of this is about realizing the ludic/dramatic dimension of reality (as opposed to giving in to the machinic dimension of reality in which might inexorably makes right). If this seems paradoxical/delusional—well, so is reality, that’s the game of it all. This idea that reality is illusive/delusive and is something more like a trick or game is almost the default pre-modern view (Hindus, Greeks, Aztecs, etc.) - it is only us moderns believe who what you see is what you get (that reality is a problem to be solved).
There’s a lot more to unpack and I will eventually take this in all kinds of wild directions but that’s the jumping off point.”
I will take blame for not making it clear that this is an introduction to a much larger body of thought. If there is a vagueness and incompleteness to it, that’s because it’s one essay and not the full book.
Here is a comment I made on the blog that more directly explains my thesis.
“Game theory and evolution give us pretty clear null hypothesis for the future and it ain’t pretty—the strongest always survive, the mighty are always righty. Weakness and “delusion” (e.g. art, spirituality, love, mercy, compassion) get optimized out of existence as the number of competing agents asymptotes towards infinite; similarly, as technological power asymptotes towards infinity so does infinite corruption.That sucks. More than anything, it’s just fucking boring—nothing surprising ever happens, the underdog never wins, the story always ends the same way. But this is just a null hypothesis—as they say, you don’t play the games on paper.
I want to live in a universe where surprising things happen and the aforementioned delusions still have a place. In some sense, I want to turn the world and its ways upside down—I want the weak and the deluded to win—but how? Not through rational intelligence or “work” because that is exactly how the null hypothesis becomes fulfilled. Reality is like a chinese finger trap, struggling only deepens your entrapment.
Workfulness/playfulness, adultiness/childliness—all of this is about realizing the ludic/dramatic dimension of reality (as opposed to giving in to the machinic dimension of reality in which might inexorably makes right). If this seems paradoxical/delusional—well, so is reality, that’s the game of it all. This idea that reality is illusive/delusive and is something more like a trick or game is almost the default pre-modern view (Hindus, Greeks, Aztecs, etc.) - it is only us moderns believe who what you see is what you get (that reality is a problem to be solved).
There’s a lot more to unpack and I will eventually take this in all kinds of wild directions but that’s the jumping off point.”
I’ll have another essay in a few weeks—I will send it to you and I look forward to your criticism.
LWers abhor metaphor and poetry. They want you to spoonfeed them in the most direct and literal way possible.
What is a value? What is a law? What is money?
yes!
yes
interesting!
hmmm weird...
Huh, you might want to get your virus-checker checked—it’s just a link to a substack page
yes
Very interesting, and yes I think I’m getting at something like that here as well.
yes
No I think it does—almost like free-range foraging vs. being spoon-fed information (wild animal vs. domesticated) - in the former you learn how to quickly discriminate between good/useful food and bad and develop a kind of intuition for how to efficiently find the good stuff whereas in the latter you do not.
then read it again but non-ironically
ughh you are right, missed opportunity
Fair enough, but as I said not all writing has to be aimed at maximum concision and clarity (and insisting that it should be is bad for our collective creativity). One may choose to write in a less direct manner in order to briefly present numerous tangentially related ideas (which readers may follow up on if they choose) or simply to provide a more varied and entertaining reading experience. Believe it or not, there are other goals that one can have in writing and reading besides maximally efficient communication/intake of information.
There’s a lot to disentangle here, but I think you’re conflating embeddedness/constraint and I’m not sure what you are saying that invalidates my original point.
- re: embeddedness—the allele in a sexual species is shuffled into a wildly different background every generation whereas it the allele finds itself in a background which is almost the same every generation with the rare exception of horizontal gene transfer. A new mutation is very much embedded in a specific genetic background in a way that it is not in a sexual organism. For a mutation to be beneficial in a sexual organism, it needs to be beneficial on average across the vast pool of genomic combinations for that species—it can’t just be beneficial in the one genotype of the organism in which it occurred like it can in a clonal species. The mutation in a sexual organism also needs to be sexually beneficial in that particular gene pool, i.e. - a gene for red feathers is only good in a gene pool where the allele for attraction to red feathers is at a high frequency.
- there are still “species” in asexual organisms, i.e. clusters in genotype space. Genes that jump to another cluster (a human pathogen → a soil bacteria) can certainly have a wildly different effect on that new cluster/species (there is something like reproductive isolation for asexual species with horizontal gene transfer).
- the diploidy and genotypic/phenotypic complexity of sexual reproducing organisms makes them much more robust to mutations. I’m not sure why you think a single nucleotide mutation can’t have a massive effect on a bacteria. They have less genes and less phenotypes but the map is still incredibly intricate and continent.
Hope this helps.