PBD - Heated Debate on Anarchy With Michael Malic

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I'm just presenting Schmachtenberger's position, as I understand it.

Okay. Fair.

Quote

I'm for dictatorship.

Why? We have a democracy. It works reasonably well.

Quote

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.

There is no technology that can replace human government. We have no idea when such technology will exist. So factoring in something that doesn't exist is silly. We will cross that bridge when we get there. Human government is not going anywhere in the next 50 years. An AI cannot just tell humans how to run a government. This is so childish. This is like saying a calculator can replace all the math professors.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Leo Gura

[zurew]

@Nilsi Thats not what Daniel was talking about, Daniel said that he would want an advanced AI (and not GPT 3 because that AI is incapable to do this task and so far there is no AI that could do this) to take into account different kind of valuesystems and people's deepest values (conservative , progressive) etc and create such plans that would include both and would not hurt neither of them too much, basically somehow creating some kind of synthesis from seemingly opposite valuesystems. 

He didn't say, that the AI would do all the governance , he said, we would use that AI in a way where it would inform people and give people ideas about governance and about certain plans and then people would choose from those ideas. He is against totally automatizing an AI overlord, because that has its own problems.

Edited March 19, 2023 by zurew

[Nilsi]

Just now, zurew said:

@Nilsi Thats not what Daniel was talking about, Daniel said that he would want an advanced AI (and not GPT 3 because that AI is incapable to do this task and so far there is no AI that could do this) to take into account different kind of valuesystems and people's deepest values (conservative , progressive) etc and create such plans that would include both and would not hurt neither of them too much, basically somehow creating some kind of synthesis from seemingly opposite valuesystems. 

He didn't say, that the AI would do all the governance , he said, we would use that AI in a way where it would inform people and give people ideas about governance and about certain pla ns and then people would choose from those ideas. He is against totally automatizing an AI overlord, because that has its own problems with it.

Thats what I was saying.

He used GPT-3 as an example of this.

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Thats what I was saying.

Then I misread.

[Nilsi]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Why? We have a democracy. It works reasonably well.

There is no technology that can replace human government. We have no idea when such technology will exist. So factoring in something that doesn't exist is silly. We will cross that bridge when we get there. Human government is not going anywhere in the next 50 years.

Works well is a bit of a stretch lol. 

I dont think one is generally better than the other, I just prefer dictatorship aesthetically.

[Nilsi]

Just now, zurew said:

Then I misread.

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.

[zurew]

Just now, Nilsi said:

I dont think one is generally better than the other, I just prefer dictatorship aesthetically.

Philosophically you are all for effectiveness, right?

[Nilsi]

2 minutes ago, zurew said:

Philosophically you are all for effectiveness, right?

I wouldnt say that. Im for Truth first and foremost and after that Im for high culture and aesthetics, which is why Im a bit of a fascist I guess.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Nilsi

[zurew]

1 minute ago, Nilsi said:

I wouldnt say that. Im for Truth first and foremost and after that Im for high culture and aesthetics, which is why Im a bit of a fascist I guess.

What I meant, is that in the context of governance, you would always prefer a system that is the most effective to get things done compared to other systems.

[Nilsi]

3 minutes ago, zurew said:

What I meant, is that in the context of governance, you would always prefer a system that is the most effective to get things done compared to other systems.

Get what done? I would rather we have a few bright stars, that bless us with high culture and art, than an egalitarian soup of mediocrity.

Of course, good governemnt has some basic goals like continuing the survival of the species, educating the populous, putting food in everyones mouth etc. but beyond that, it can go many directions.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Nilsi

[zurew]

1 minute ago, Nilsi said:

Get what done? I would rather we have a few bright stars that bless us with culture and art than an egalitarian soup of mediocrity.

Of course, good governemnt has some basic goals like continuing the survival of the species, educating the populous, putting food in everyones mouth etc. but beyond that, it can go many directions.

We still don't know much what makes people exceptionally good at certain things and how much of that is inherent to their genes and how much of that is being in an exceptional environment and having access to exceptional teachers almost 24/7. 

what I think would ideally needs to be done, is the creation of a system that recognises the talent in people at an early stage and then is capable to give all the necessary tools to all these people. 

17 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I would rather we have a few bright stars that bless us with culture and art than an egalitarian soup of mediocrity.

I don't think you can have a long lasting dictatorship ever, where the incentives are not aligned and people feel like their deepest and most cared values are not taken into account.

Even if you put the most conscious people there, they will probably get corrupt but even if they don't, there will be millions of people who will strive to that consious person's position and the system start to get rigged very fast and start to fall apart very fast.

Why would people go along with a system where they feel like and their perception is that they are getting fucked, because their values are not taken into account?

[Nilsi]

11 minutes ago, zurew said:

We still don't know much what makes people exceptionally good at certain things and how much of that is inherent to their genes and how much of that is being in an exceptional environment and having access to exceptional teachers almost 24/7. 

We could talk about eugenics and Platos republic here - we can carefully breed the Übermensch, in a fascist society. In a democracy this wouldnt be possible.

11 minutes ago, zurew said:

what I think would ideally needs to be done, is the creation of a system that recognises the talent in people at an early stage and then is capable to give all the necessary tools to all these people. 

  Thats step two - after we assembled the ideal genome.

11 minutes ago, zurew said:

I don't think you can have a long lasting dictatorship ever, where the incentives are not aligned and people feel like their deepest and most cared values are not taken into account.

Not that hard to satisfy people needs and values via technology and entertainment nowadays.

11 minutes ago, zurew said:

Even if you put the most conscious people there, they will probably get corrupt but even if they don't, there will be millions of people who will strive to that consious person's position and the system start to get rigged very fast and start to fall apart very fast.

I understand the game theory behind it, but in a society with unlimited entertainment, I dont think the leadership position would be that sought after.

If shit hits the fan, theres always the noble lie we could tell to justify the hierarchy.

Also, this need not last, as far as Im concerned. A few years/decades of this system would already be worth the hassle.

11 minutes ago, zurew said:

Why would people go along with a system where they feel like and their perception is that they are getting fucked, because their values are not taken into account?

They are not getting fucked though. If they care about human flourishing, they will be satisfied with the high culture and art, the master race produces; if they dont, they will rot away in the metaverse anyways and not cause any problems.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Nilsi

[zurew]

4 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

We could talk about eugenics and Platos republic here - we can carefully breed the Übermensch, in a fascist society. In a democracy this wouldnt be possible.

We should probably talk about the axioms that we think are necessary to have a long lasting , flourishing society (don't have to lay out all of them, but mention some of them).

I will start first, and you know probably all of these, because all these came from Daniel: 1) The Incentives are need to be aligned (because if they are not, your system won't last long, and if it won't last long, then you can't achieve long term development), 2) There needs to be collective sensemaking (This can only happen, if the first axiom is already in place), 3) Collective choicemaking (everyone's values need to be considered and taken into account)

 

9 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Not that hard to satisfy people needs and values via technology and entertainment nowadays.

I understand the game theory behind it, but in a society with unlimited entertainment, I dont think the leadership position would be that sought after.

I think there is a big difference between getting entertained, and getting your deepest values protected or satisfied.  I think this is probably where one of our biggest disagreement lies and where your system's foundation is, so lets talk about this in more depth.

You are basically saying using entertainment can overwrite gametheory or at the very least, make it much less important. Can you give me a example that demonstrates this?

I think what you wanted to say is not just entertainment, but more like people getting whatever they feel they need. But even that position is problematic, because true satisfaction can only come through having deep meaning to your life, unless people strongly feel that their life is meaningful I believe you will have problems with game theory + I would add that if people deeply disagree with the ethics of your system, you will eventually have problems no matter how much entertainment you will provide. 

 

[Nilsi]

18 minutes ago, zurew said:

I will start first, and you know probably all of these, because all these came from Daniel: 1) The Incentives are need to be aligned (because if they are not, your system won't last long, and if it won't last long, then you can't achieve long term development), 2) There needs to be collective sensemaking (This can only happen, if the first axiom is already in place), 3) Collective choicemaking (everyone's values need to be considered and taken into account)

I dont think any of these are necessary.

18 minutes ago, zurew said:

I think there is a big difference between getting entertained, and getting your deepest values protected or satisfied.  I think this is probably where one of our biggest disagreement lies and where your system's foundation is, so lets talk about this in more depth.

You are basically saying using entertainment can overwrite gametheory or at the very least, make it much less important. Can you give me a example that demonstrates this?

Were already seeing it. Who is getting their deepest values met nowadays? Maybe 1 in a 1.000.000.

Why is there no revolution or upheaval then? Because people are sedated by entertainment, junk food, drugs, etc. - they are comfortable enough, to not feel the need to go out of their way and demand a more ideal state of affairs.

The argument against benevolent dictatorship is that everybody wants to be in that position, creating a constant struggle for power, which forces the dictator to allocate a large amount of energy and ressources into maintaining his power - which in turn takes away from him asserting his ideal state.  

This is no longer true when 99% of people dont even care, let alone actively resist, whats going on politically.

18 minutes ago, zurew said:

I think what you wanted to say is not just entertainment, but more like people getting whatever they feel they need. But even that position is problematic, because true satisfaction can only come through having deep meaning to your life, unless people strongly feel that their life is meaningful I believe you will have problems with game theory + I would add that if people deeply disagree with the ethics of your system, you will eventually have problems no matter how much entertainment you will provide. 

My goal is not to give everybody "true satisfaction" via leveling the playing field and abolishing power dynamics - thats what Schmachtenberger wants to do.

My goal is to justify the struggle and suffering of people via grand artistic and scientific achievements. - and fascism lends itself well for that (thats what we can argue: is centralized or decentralized governance more effective at creating great cultural breakthroughs? - I think theres arguments either way).

Edited March 19, 2023 by Nilsi

[zurew]

7 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Because people are sedated by entertainment, junk food, drugs, etc. - they are comfortable enough, to not feel the need to go out of their way and demand a more ideal state of affairs.

I don't think thats the answer, the answer is that they still somewhat feel that  they can have an effect on the system and they have a say in the system and not totally excluded from the choicemaking process.  

If people think that democracy is failing and that there is no way to have an effect on a system you would see a lot of justifications for killing, burning down things, and overthrowing the government.  Why would people not do it, when they feel there is no other way to change the system but other than a revolution? - what you want is a system that either gives people the ability to have a direct effect on the system or you need to give people the feeling that they can have an effect on the system.

People's morals can't be overwritten or be sedated by entertainment. You used the current times as an example, if we go with that time frame and take a look at US politics we can immedately see that this is not true. George Floyd riots, January 6 United States Capitol attack, and much more examples could be given.

[TheAlchemist]

3 hours ago, Nilsi said:

 

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.

Where did Schmachtenberger say we should have AI governing people?

I'm suspecting there's more nuance to his point than that, if you have the link I would love to see the where he spoke on that topic. 

 

Here's one clip where he talks about collective/global governance:

 

Edited March 19, 2023 by TheAlchemist

[Nilsi]

29 minutes ago, TheAlchemist said:

Where did Schmachtenberger say we should have AI governing people?

I'm suspecting there's more nuance to his point than that, if you have the link I would love to see the where he spoke on that topic. 

 

Here's one clip where he talks about collective/global governance:

 

In the "Third Attractor" series on Rebel Wisdom.

[Nilsi]

45 minutes ago, zurew said:

If people think that democracy is failing and that there is no way to have an effect on a system you would see a lot of justifications for killing, burning down things, and overthrowing the government.  Why would people not do it, when they feel there is no other way to change the system but other than a revolution? 

Because they dont care. They spend more time thinking about what movie to watch on Netflix tonight, than on how a well functioning society should be structured, let alone about ideals like Justice, Beauty, Truth... - 99% (Im being very generous) of humans are literally animals that need to be ruled by an elite.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Nilsi

[Victor van Rijn]

Listen to this short fragment of Bashar talking about the government:

https://ia600209.us.archive.org/32/items/BasharPlanetaryMidwife_201603/Bashar-YouAreYourGovernmentPart1.mp3

https://ia800209.us.archive.org/32/items/BasharPlanetaryMidwife_201603/Bashar-YouAreYourGovernmentPart2.mp3

Edited March 19, 2023 by Victor van Rijn

[Nilsi]

4 minutes ago, Victor van Rijn said:

Listen to this short fragment of Bashar talking about the government:

https://ia600209.us.archive.org/32/items/BasharPlanetaryMidwife_201603/Bashar-YouAreYourGovernmentPart1.mp3

https://ia800209.us.archive.org/32/items/BasharPlanetaryMidwife_201603/Bashar-YouAreYourGovernmentPart2.mp3

Cringe.