It's pretty dystopian to see a page comprised of technocrats writing about these topics.
Median estimation for AGI is around 2060 so its not just "average" people.
Median estimation for AGI is around 2060 so its not just "average" people.
Is that AGI of 2060 a mistake?
Seeing the former group beginning to consider the effects of their work is dystopian.
I'm not sure what you mean by "mistake."
It's not dystopian to consider the possible effects of one's work. If you don't consider them, then how can you make adjustments/improvements? It would be dystopian to maximize the negative impacts. We are doing the opposite - questioning what the best course of action might be.
I never said we should forget about the average people or normal people as Yang calls them in his book "The War on Normal People."
Even if we don't have AGI we will have narrow AI such as self driving/factory stuff/textiles which will displace millions. I'm all for UBI or some sort of equivalent social safety net (I'm not an economist so I don't want to be prescriptive here as I have heard some drawbacks to UBI).
The technocrats have already created platforms that are tearing our social fabric apart by promulgating conspiracies and radicalizing our youth while reducing long-form literacy an increasing anxiety and depression.
What we need is some sort of social revolution that in my opinion could only be obtained by an authoritarian government that protects people from themselves and the exploitive tech corporations. Ban facebook to reduce conspiracy promulgation. Ban tiktok and ever increasingly addictive video games to prevent our youth from becoming dopamine junkees. Ban drugs so the listless and ever-growing welfare class remain mostly docile.
None of these changes are feasible in a country whose identity revolves around personal freedom/choice.
Why fight nature? Government shouldn't protect citizens from themselves. Let it take its course. The stupid people should reduce through natural attrition. It's controversial, but it's the way the natural world works.
Also reducing human suffering seems to be a pretty good thing to do and your natural system doesn't seem to do that.
The actions you were proposing weren't things to help people make better decisions (if they were, it would still be free will). They were to make laws to outlaw activities. If you don't believe in free will, why do you propose helping people make better decisions? Do you really think imposing someone else's will over others is more benign? The government imposes its will through force or threat thereof (causing human suffering).
Government and politics is not really artificial. They form naturally whenever there are groups of people - similar leadership and power dynamics exist in the natural world too (look at bees, ants, wolves, etc).
Why? Because it reduces human suffering.
Also surely with better technology we will be able to transform prisons into rehabilitation centers and thus reduce our countries prison populations and thus become a FREER country, albeit one with less rights?
I think comparing our government to a beehive or a pack of wolves is ridiculous I guess you can call governments "natural." Even if we consider this government natural, surely it doesn't have a natural state. What is the "natural state" of a government of 350 million people?
For example, why would I shoot you? I have no motive to do that regardless of what the laws may be. There is nothing the government has done to make it impossible for someone to shoot you. It's just that if some one does and gets caught, they go to prison.
On the subject of dissolving the government, you are completely wrong. There is nothing stopping me from non-violently overthrowing the government. The Constitution even states that if the people want to dissolve the government, they can. So I could try to convince people to elect myself and others who would change or even dissolve it.
"Also surely with better technology we will be able to transform prisons into rehabilitation centers and thus reduce our countries prison populations and thus become a FREER country, albeit one with less rights?"
This is completely nonsensical. Technology isn't holding back prison reform - social and political powers are the main drivers. Why would the number of rights be reduced? You've laid out no premise to connect nor support that statement.