Nilsi

Its tricky to talk about this, as its so abstract. What does it look like for AI to do governance? I have no idea lol. Something like that is what hes proposing, in any case.

Works well is a bit of a stretch lol. I dont think one is generally better than the other, I just prefer dictatorship aesthetically.

Thats what I was saying. He used GPT-3 as an example of this.

I'm just presenting Schmachtenberger's position, as I understand it. I'm for dictatorship. In any case, you have some serious blindspots regarding exponential technology - show me that you've factored those in your political analysis and I will take it seriously.

I think you're vastly underestimating exponential technology. In a world of tabletop CRISPR, AI superintelligence, nanobots and so on, you can't trust humans with the responsibility of governance. All it takes is 1 fuck up and we're done. Do you really want to trust some fucking social media addicted, obese, sweaty ape, that has slept 4 hours last night, because he watched a horde of apes throw a ball across a field, while stuffing himself with pizza and bears... do you want to trust that guy with administrative work, regarding the proper classification of say pathogen research, which any psychopath with a bioengineering degree could turn into a synthetic supervirus in his basement -- because that's the reality you're proposing. And that's 5 years, not 500.

How? We mostly have manufactured demand and consent. This is where it's starting to get complex already - of course we need to make sure that people aren't corrupted and governed by perverse incentives and market forces -- calling what we currently have democracy is laughable. The people will only add unnecessary noise. If we assume, we have properly represented the will of the people (of course, that get's us into the whole "the map is not the territory" AI alignment problem), there is no need to let human ambiguity interfere with delicate and complex operations. He was literally talking about GPT-3.

Bureaucracy is literally the arch nemesis of collective action, especially as things become increasingly complex. What he wants to do is educate and develop the populous, let them set the agenda/values/priorities, have that be the basis for AI alignment, and have that AI educate and govern the people. And so on in a virtuous cycle. At least, that's the only concrete example of collective intelligence he's given. The obvious problem here is that you need an educated populous to begin with As far as I'm concerned, it's way more realistic to get 1 person to the necessary level of development and have that person assert their will and intelligence on the world.

What makes Daniel Schmachtenberger's notion of "collective intelligence" i.e. decentralized distributed governance more appealing to you, than Malice's so called anarchism (if it is)? Of course this presupposes a highly educated and developed majority, but if that's not the case, the only other option to handle the complexity of the 21st century is some kind of benevolent Übermensch dictator - and I'm not convinced any one agent is intelligent enough, not to fuck this up spectacularly (as Xi and Putin clearly demonstrate -- although the label benevolent obviously doesn't apply here).

I didn't think you could do one. Good for you. Now be reasonable and do something like 20-30min a day.

Making them an extension of your will.

Theo Von always cracks me up.

What even is this lol. First thing I do in the AI metaverse is imagine a teletalk show with Leo and Frank Yang debating Buddhists on God and Consciousness.

Love is evil!

How people complaining about this perceive Actualized.org

*Whoooosh* ^ the sound the joke made as it went over your head.

I think everyone would agree that perspectivalism and the demonstration of relativity, concerning cultural norms and customs, is very insightful (and most certainly funny) - well, maybe except closed-minded dogmatics whose intellectual posturing is threatened by serious inquiry and deconstruction.

The ultimate introvert anthem Caroline Polachek consistently restores my hope in humanity - such an incredibly passionate artist and overall person.

I agree. It's easy (and perhaps inevitable for someone with high standards) to focus on all the little imperfections and totally neglect all the great stuff that's already there. I really enjoyed this episode and found myself grinning from ear to ear and getting teary eyed throughout it - and I know no one that puts me into this state as reliably as Leo. So yeah, credit where credit is due.

Shit happens.

The problem being that he only had two shots.

I recommend "How to Make Love All Night" by Barbara Keesling. That one is much more practical and to the point. The title says it all - that's what we're here for after all, no?

This is like drawing the target around the arrow.

Nice. Can you do it though?

Figure it out! - I thought you were an idealist?! We live in the 21st century. There has to be some way to monetize this. Creating a personal brand and building an audience on social media would be a low hanging fruit, but I'm sure there are dozens of ways to pull this off.