The only way it stops becoming a winning strategy is if we provide consequences, but that requires taking personal responsibility for the state of the world, which was a core American value, but doesn't seem to be anymore.
In order to change the game theoretic outcomes, we‘d need a systemic change that affects the rewards, not a personal attitude change that will become a losing strategy in the game.
Also, do you remember how tobacco companies were invited to the table to discuss whether smoking is bad for you? Were those the days of personal responsibility or was it even before that?
As the AI leaders themselves admit [1], they are doing what they're doing (i.e. capability-maxxing without caring deeply about actual risks this opens up for humanity) because they can and because the other guy's doing it, so why should they be left behind?
They're asking for some external force to bring the morality that they agree on paper ought to exist. There is a segment among them that are even okay with millions of people dying before the risk of AI gets taken seriously. [2]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrESBnPYoZU, seek to 2:45 [2] same as above, seek to 3:25
A rookie gangster shot a high-tier gangster — why is that a me problem? Gang-on-gang violence is a daily occurrence.
It's fairly obvious that much of what the more sociopathic corporations do today will be illegal in the future, but changes in social opinions tend to predate changes in the law by quite some time. For the obvious extreme there - slavery was completely legal. Society began to believe that such a thing was no longer fit for society, and consequently acting against it, long before it was outlawed.
Modern democracy mostly just doesn't seem to work how it ought.
It is funny to say this as if every other modern democracy hasn't solved the specific problem that you have given. The issue isn't democracy, it is the American democracy (or republic if you want to be pedantic).
Specifically, the combination of our expansive freedom of speech protections (which make campaign financing restrictions near impossible) and first past the post voting system make it easy for corporations and the rich to shape the government however they want.
The only place it seems to be really working is in Switzerland and in the Scandinavian micronations (notably Sweden is trending more towards the patterns of Europe than Scandinavia).
They addressed by rationing and limiting access. Of course their systems are generally much more efficient cost wise. However Europe isn’t some Utopian wonderland.
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2...
I wonder if someone could put together a Time series data on some benchmarks like the government cost to put up a stop sign.
It’s a bit like using Big Mac index for estimating PPP.
People broadly agree that they dont like the status quo. They dont agree on what would be better. You cant have change without direction and detail.
And getting people elected is no different. Fewer and fewer people identify as either republican or democrat (with independents being the largest 'party' by far), yet lo and behold like 99.9% of politicians at all levels, high and low, are republican or democrat, with basically no independent representation because the system makes it unreasonably difficult to select an alternative. This is further confounded by an utterly worthless media system that further works to entrench the political establishment, and much more.
Regarding the party and representational system, I agree there is a lot of dysfunction. Same problem. Nobody can agree on alternatives. Even ranked choice, which I think is the tiniest step in the right direction is highly controversial. Ideas like expanding the house to 30,000 representatives [1], seem like a fantasy.
People hate change more than the status quo.
Regarding the media environment, the consumer is the problem. As long as people prefer and seek out garbage, there is no possible solution.
It's obviously not people hating change. People want these things, and many others to change. It's a completely broken political system that is happy to change, but only when it benefits corporations or political, especially geopolitical, interests. Ranked choice won't do anything. Australia has one of the most dysfunctional democracies in the world, and they have both universal voting, obviously 'Australian voting', and even a proportionally elected Senate.
Politicians can be voted out of office. The process is simple and foolproof. The problem is people are divided and can't agree.
If every voter next election had your claim denial law as their top priority, they could replace Congress entirely.
Instead, they will fight over the same issues.
And obviously you're straw manning things. The reason people screw over other people is because they expect there will be no consequences. Whether this is some thug mugging a guy for $20 on the street corner, or a guy in a suit developing ever more novel strategies to ultimately refuse healthcare to people - it's the exact same issue. When there are consequences, the entire calculus changes.
I agree consequences are a powerful incentive. If you reject updating the law, where does that leave you?
What exactly is your position? Should I go out and shoot people I disagree with or not? Are you going out and shooting people?
If I have to read "the tree of Liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots" one more time I'm going to claw my eyes out. It is a rhetorical copout when faced with genuinely difficult of how to enact reform. Spend a month in Syria, Libya, or Sudan and then tell me that you support civil war, let alone every generation. If internet posturing ever turns into reality, people will be in for a rude awakening.
Here's a quiz for understanding: what did Jefferson think of the 'revolutionaries' of whose actions he's directly defending?
You believe in the product of Locke's philosophy, but deny its requirements.
Tyranny is the result of consolidated power. Tyrants aren't going to respond to "please give up your power" or "please follow the law" peacefully. If you challenge power, power will respond. The freedom of speech exists precisely because saying something tyrants don't like will result in tyrants trying to punish you for your speech. Freedom of speech exists in order to protect speaking truth to power because power doesn't like truth spoken to it.
Freedom is solidarity. Solidarity is its price. The word solidarity itself is important to reflect on, because it is solidarity against a force that seeks to break the solidarity by harming individuals acting in solidarity. Labor rights and protection for freedoms were hard won, many individuals were harmed earning them. This country that you enjoy was the result of a revolutionary and civil war.
This is the language the country was literally founded on. This is where the rights you enjoy being protected come from:
These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to tax) but "to bind us in all cases whatsoever" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth.
> Spend a month in Syria, Libya, or Sudan and then tell me that you support civil war
What do you think makes people fight in a war? Why are Ukrainians fighting in what, if you accept Putin's framing, is a civil war?
The problem with your judgement is that it presumes that law is a limit rather than weapon, that it protects rather than attacks, and that the law can interpret and enforce itself. This is a form of privilege because you grew up under conditions where those were mostly true because those in power generally followed the law, so you've never had to question many of your base assumptions about what law is, how it is enforced, or what legitimacy/illegitimacy means. Decisions made have mostly been decisions you can tolerate even if you disagree. You've probably never taken the time to understand America's founding philosophy, which states there is truth that supersedes law, specifically that rights are even more fundamental than law and completely supersede it. You owe yourself a reading of the declaration of independence.
You likely haven't been on the receiving end of blatantly unjust law or "law" enforcement nor do you likely identify with those who have been on the receiving end. You've probably never had to bribe a police officer, something that happens on this planet. You probably haven't experienced law enforcers robbing you of your dignity with the force of courts behind them. You've probably never been subject to law that says you are someone else's property.
Unfortunately for your argument, law can be used to consolidate power to update the law. You can update the law so that only you are able to update the law. When the system of legitimacy for the use of force becomes a tool for power consolidation, "consensus" becomes irrelevant. Consent becomes irrelevant. This is in many ways communicated by OP's managed democracy. What happens when you disagree with management? What does it mean for democracy to be managed. It obviously is because politicians ask for money, not time, not votes, but money. That implies that those with money can influence election results loosely proportional to their money.
You should really read about political philosophy, specifically the "state of nature" which even conservative NYT columnist David Brooks has said we are in. Generally when people say that it means that we are effectively lawless and subject only to systems of power. There is no law to follow because it is arbitrary and unpredictable or everything is criminalized to the point where everyone is guilty allowing enforcement to punish who they choose while technically enforcing the law.
How do you get people who have consolidated systems of power to the negotiating table? How should Ukraine get Russia to the negotiating table? Russia is claiming it is Ukraine's government and therefore Ukrainians are "protected" by Russian law. Gazans are "protected" by Israeli law too. China claims that it's laws "protect" Hong Kong citizens and Taiwanese. Their militaries are technically acting as police if you accept their framing.
Multiple second in commands of the US military have said trump is trying to divide and conquer America. Think about that. Think about what it means for a president to divide the country. It means that they see themselves as president of only half of the people. What does that mean for the other half, do they actually have a government? Are they protected by law?
This country was founded on the philosophy of John Locke, and it's not clear you've read it or understand it, because it doesn't say shoot whoever you disagree with (although that is something that happens in the state of nature), but it also doesn't rely on magical thinking about "building consensus to update the law" which is something that makes sense to think about under a constitutional democratic government, but doesn't make any sense in a monarchy or government aspiring to have a "unitary executive."
Massively increasing inequality and giving too much political power to corporate robber barons has its costs. If nobody is willing to keep them in check the appearance of some sort of “vigilantism” seems hard to avoid. Not implying that its a good thing or that political violence really ever led to positive change historically..
How many people has UHC killed? I don’t know, it’s really hard to measure. Besides the people killed because they didn’t receive funding for care, there’s also the plethora of practices insurers enforce. Some, maybe most, of those practices are non-optimal, so some subset of people are dying that shouldn’t. Oh well.
Beyond the obvious moral decay of cheering on murder at all, and the fact you’re in the privileged class of the richest nation on earth, the idea of targeting the replaceable middle managers of said system is so silly. As if committing random acts of terrorism will somehow force Americans to democratically design a better system? Fear is just another recipe for more ballooning costs (see the TSA).
I guess I find this so amusing because leftists love to fetishize European healthcare without understanding in European countries the government is much more aggressive about denying care than any US insurer. They actually have to keep costs sane for their system to continue existing.
All economic systems must contend with resource scarcity. Part of dealing with that is rationing resources which can take the form of higher prices, longer waiting lines, by need, countless other metrics, or some combination of metrics. While the current healthcare system in the US is a byzantine disaster that only a bureaucrat could love, I think far too many think there is a "solution" that somehow leads to a system without resource constraints. This imagined system isn't an economic system though, it's just a utopia.
“The fact that so many successful politicians are such shameless liars is not only a reflection on them, it is also a reflection on us. When the people want the impossible, only liars can satisfy.” -- Thomas Sowell
The privileged class is significantly higher up than this. I've clawed every bit of everything I have from this world despite many efforts to keep me down.
I don't find your comment genuine at all. You're just trying to be dismissive.
That is also the case for US insurers. The only difference is if the government denies life saving treatments, people protest. If private insurers do so, people have no recourse.
US healthcare is one of the most complicated systems of adverse incentives and tangled byzantine public/private spiderwebs ever created. To kill random people involved at 15 layers of abstraction away from the actual root causes thinking that will somehow make it better is probably the dumbest idea I've ever heard.
We have a consent based government, that's plainly stated in the founding document. Now this government is doing things no person of good conscience can consent to, such as talking about wars of aggression against Greenland, Panama, and Canada, denying due process in clear violation of the constitution we were taught in school regardless of what any judge rules (and they are ruling it is a constitutional violation), and sending people to death camps in foreign countries. The leader said "I wish I had Hitler's generals".
I am being ordered to deny the evidence of my eyes and ears daily.
Unfortunately there aren't very many lessons about what withdrawing consent for a consent based government looks like.
Calling us rich benefactors is accusing us of not having morals, values, or red lines we hold in higher esteem than money. If our values are violated but we can't be bribed by our privileged position in a corrupt society then that's Bolshevism? It's having a conscience. It's having integrity. We are getting the society we deserve right now, one where money is the only thing that matters, one where integrity is punished and even judged as "endlessly funny".
There was nothing random at all about the actions being referenced, that's why you find so much support online and even more support with virtually every city dwelling person who is not a boomer in person.
I don't think it's the best way to promote change, but he did start a conversation about justice and its relationship to the judicial system that needs to be had.
Sam Altman should receive the same treatment as Aaron Swartz. Actually, he should be punished much more severely since the scope of his copyright infringement makes Aaron's seem like child's play.
"Smaht"[1] people learn to game the system and scam others for momentary benefit.
The worse side that is that we're all guilty of that system, to some degree, even if only by enabling it.
I'm also 100% sure that this is what drives civilizations to the ground.
1. Smaht is a term I use to describe people who think they're smart but they're actually extremely stupid. A lot of smaht people have degrees and diplomas which further fuels their delusion of intelligence.
Tech Company: At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from classic sci-fi novel Don't Create The Torment Nexus
(@AlexBlechman on twitter)
Tech adjacent blogger: Hey guys here me out I love that we're building "starships" but it would also be spiffy if we end democracy and appoint a God Emperor!
Quite often this dystopian 'fiction' is just a biography with the names and place rewritten. A scary number of people are rather anti-human.