Links and thoughts, 4/2016
Societies of mind, Scott Aaronson, Moloch, Guaranteed income, Nurturance culture, Ramanujan, writing
Posted: 2016-04-30 , Modified: 2016-04-30
Tags: links
Societies of mind, Scott Aaronson, Moloch, Guaranteed income, Nurturance culture, Ramanujan, writing
Posted: 2016-04-30 , Modified: 2016-04-30
Tags: links
I’ve changed the way that I organize links and media. Previously, I made a “summary” blog post every month. From now on, I’ll put them in this workflowy, categorized by topic. This is because
Every item is tagged with the date that I read it (format YYYY-(M)M-(D)D). Workflowy can filter by tags, so you can still get a monthly summary as follows.
#2016-4
for items added this month. This month’s links.(\*)
. To search for the most interesting items in this month, search (\*) #2016-4
. This month’s starred links.For this monthly summary I’ll instead write about a few highlights/threads that stood out to me, and draw connections between some of the different items.
Interview with Scott Aaronson h His quote is on point:
I love when the human race gains new knowledge, in math or history or anything else. I love when important decisions fall into the hands of people who constantly second-guess themselves and worry that their own ‘tribe’ might be mistaken, who are curious about science and have a sense of the ironic and absurd. I love when society’s outcasts, like Alan Turing or Michael Burry (who predicted the subprime mortgage crisis), force everyone else to pay attention to them by being inconveniently right. And whenever I read yet another thinkpiece about the problems with ‘narrow-minded STEM nerds’—how we’re basically narcissistic children, lacking empathy and social skills, etc. etc.—I think to myself, ‘then let everyone else be as narrow and narcissistic as most of the STEM nerds I know; I have no further wish for the human race.’
Meditations on Moloch h When individual agents are grouped together in larger systems, the system has an emergent character and can do things that none of the individuals wants (ex. different nations engage in arms races—these situations often have a “Prisoner’s Dilemma” nature); in order to survive in such a world, individuals may have to give up their values and optimize for something that they don’t want to optimize. Systems that manipulate people in this way can destroy the world, and in fact, already exert a strong influence.1 Giving this kind of force a name, Moloch, helps us recognize this influence.
Moreover, as technology becomes more powerful, Moloch only becomes more powerful. Scott further argues that we are in a rare period of relative peace. He argues that the best way to destroy Moloch is to install another god (i.e., superintelligent AI) in its place.I’m unsure what to make of the conclusion of the argument, but I think the question of how to defend against Moloch is a very pressing one. You don’t have to look towards armaggeddon examples—it rears its head any time society exerts pressure on the individual. A down-to-earth example is a workaholic culture (it’s hard to go against the grain, both socially and economically). Why hasn’t the dream of machines decreasing work for humans been realized?
And here is a proposed solution: Is the world ready for a guaranteed basic income? The podcast makes the very good point that “If you look at the 18th and at the 19th century, some of the great scientific breakthroughs and some of the great cultural breakthroughs were made by people who did not work,”2 and it does a good job of exploring the research and pros/cons of a guaranteed income.
One continual source of conflict between people who want technological progress and people who are skeptical is that “it takes away jobs!” A guaranteed basic income certainly seems like a tempting solution—but even some kind of a safety net that is more narrowly targeted could resolve this conflict.This is beautiful! Opulent Joy
Even if the vast majority of people are rational, it only takes a few to create terror.↩
cf. A Room of One’s Own. The title refers to “any author’s need for poetic license and the personal liberty to create art.”↩
by which I mean mathematics as an endeavor, rather than just “getting the equations right”.↩