7,953 karma · joined June 30, 2020
What we are seeing now is an assault on the idea of rights. This border control action is a salami slicing tactic against the idea of rights itself. To rob others of their dignity... their freedom to express themselves and form their own beliefs and convictions without consequences from the government means that it is no longer a right to have your own opinions and assessments, but instead that is a privilege reserved only for "the protected."
Rights exist as a counter-force to tyranny and the entire idea, language, and history of rights exists in the context of when it is justified to break the rules of authoritarian governments and fight tyranny. To call something a right is to say it is worth breaking the law to protect because it exists above law. The declaration of independence is absolutely crystal clear that rights supersede law which is why the founders of America were justified in violating British law and forming a government that protects rights rather than violates them.
When you do not protect the rights of others, it is a prelude to losing your own rights because once a right is turned into a privilege for anybody, structurally it has been turned into a privilege for everybody because the "right" is no longer derived from human dignity, but from law. Eventually you will disagree with those in power, and you will come to discover the same techniques used to weaken others rights will weaken your own. There is always a pretext or game to be played. Slavery was made illegal, but prisoners are allowed to be enslaved. Drug law turned people into criminals, which gave the government permission to take away their rights and force them into slave labor, which is a clear moral hazard. Denaturalization is something that can happen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denaturalization#Human_rights
If freedom of speech can only be denied to those who are not protected by state, then the state will figure out how to put you in the class of unprotected people, whether that is foreigner or criminal.
By the time you feel at risk of your own rights being violated, you will find yourself and everyone else have been habituated to ask if that specific person's rights should be protected rather than if a right has been violated or if you would feel robbed of your own dignity in that same situation, and the answer will be no, because the cost of answering yes will be too unbearable to acknowledge because doing so both creates a sense of personal responsibility and puts you at mortal risk while simultaneously making you feel alone, since nobody else seems to be provoked enough to act.
Tax policy should not be argued about in terms of how the money gets spent, but the importance of individual people not having so many resources that they can buy news organizations, social media platforms, private intelligence, or to put them beyond the reach of law.
It's not important to redistribute other people's wealth. It's important to prevent people from getting so wealthy that they can individually challenge the power of the government itself.
Musk's net worth is greater than than Russia's yearly military, or the combined military budget of both India and Germany.
Elon Musk's net worth is about the same as Ukraine's GDP.
The US intelligence community budget, which is responsible for toppling governments, has a budget of ~66 billion. Elon musk could fund 3 entire American intelligence apparati for a year on his own.
Life would be quite different if we could subjectively experience ourselves as a whole.
Malicious AI swarms are only one manifestation of technology which gives incredible leverage to a handful of people. Incredible amounts of information are collected, and an individual AI agent per person watching for disobedience is becoming more and more possible.
Companies like Clearview already scour the internet for any public pictures and associated public opinions and offer a facial recognition database with political opinions to border patrol and police agencies. If you go to a protest, border patrol knows. Our government intelligence has outsourced functions to private companies like Palantir. Privatizing intelligence means intelligence capabilities in private hands, that might sound tautological, but if this does not make you fearful, then you did not fully understand. We have license plate tracking everywhere, cameras everywhere, mapped out "social graphs," and we carry around devices in our pockets that betray every facet of our personal lives. The vast majority of transactions are electronic, itemized, and tracked.
When every location you visit is logged, interaction you have is logged, every associate you communicate with known, every transaction itemized and logged for query, and there is a database designed to join that data seamlessly to look for disobedience and the resources available to fully utilize that data, then how do you mount a resistance if those people assert their own power?
We are becoming dangerously close to not being able to resist those who own or operate the technology of oppression and it is very much outpacing the technology of resistance.
It literally and structurally offers advantage to those with more resources.
That effect compounds over time and use.
I am not even remotely talking about worker replacement, even assuming no job was lost, a company that is able to pay for better answers should have more profit and therefore more ability to pay for more/better answers.
That is entirely unsubstantiated. There is no reasonable way to measure this and any measurements taken are inherently political.
I am amenable to the idea of that being true for official spending, but unless the twitter purchase, for example, were tabulated, or spending on our American "pravda" (Truth social which was clearly influenced by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda), I would be extremely suspicious of those numbers.
> so at least at presidential level, there is neither apathy, complacency, or the ability to buy elections.
Again, I completely disagree, and so does Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, who argues that it is extremely hard to win a primary without fundraising, and fundraising is structurally an election where money counts as votes, and therefore nearly all candidates who make it to the primary have already been filtered through by those with money: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g
I am incredibly atheist, but what we are seeing is Christianity, a clear pillar of American culture, malfunctioning on a societal scale. What used to be the major cultural influence on this country has been weaponized for political purposes. There is a quote about how separation of church and state is to protect the state from the church... but now we are coming to understand that that separation exists also to protect the church from the state.
People are very susceptible to politicians lying to them, especially when it's a lie they want to hear or prefer to the truth. Compulsory voting does not address that at all. Education is a hedge on it, but education requires effort, openness, and resources. There is also a media ecosystem which acts as a sort of central nervous system for a country, which is how a country understands itself.
Culture and institutions (such as church/media/academia/police training, etc.) are the foundation of societies operations, and government is largely a manifestation of prevailing culture. Authoritarian governments are a manifestation of a culture that promotes self interest and lack of empathy, rather than one that promotes loving they neighbor and treating others as you wish to be treated.
But AI is not dangerous because of the potential for sentience, but because it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. It gives those with resources more advantage. It's dangerous because it gives individuals the power to provide answers when people ask questions out of curioity they don't know the answer to, which is when they are most able to be influenced.
Democracy requires maintenance and responsibility. You can't expect nice things without paying the maintenance cost, and unfortunately, if you challenge power, power answers and it will hurt. If nobody is willing to die for freedom, then everyone will die a slave.
Blaming others rather than looking within fundamentally accepts authoritarianism, it presumes and accepts that others have power over you and that you can do nothing but submit.
Nobody is challenging power. We only have our own selves to blame for our cowardice.
Citizens united said money is legitimate political power. Manufacturing in China is cheaper and therefore people who manufacture in China will have more profits. More profits is more legitimate political power. So manufacturing in China means you have more political power in the US.
Watch it, then try saying nothing has changed. You seem like someone with a strong world view that's strong because you reject anything that challenges it.
Sometimes defeat is required for change and sometimes change can only come from the outside.
If you analyze from the US or Russian perspective, you presuppose/assert them as the entities with agency while denying Ukrainians theirs.
Any framing of an analysis that does not start from the frame of a Ukrainian with agency is suspect.
Not necessarily, Russia's successful intelligence efforts for regime change in the US may have nullified US response.
Imagine if every IoT appliance decided to burn down/self destruct and every phone with satellite connectivity decided to weaponize its battery pack. If every car with cell service connectivity decided to accelerate with brakes disabled at once. If every access point/router decided to make itself inoperable/turned into a bot net removing home internet all at once and likely shifting traffic to cell towers which could overload them resulting in zero communication. Imagine that as many devices as possible were programmed or constructed in a way to create failure on a specific date or period.
Sounds insane, but I would have said the pager thing sounds insane too. All those things definitely sounds possible to me.
My favorite thing about LLMs is that they can convincingly tell me why I'm wrong or how I could think about things differently, not for ideas on the order of sentences and paragraphs, but on the order of pages.
My second favorite thing is that it is amazingly good at deconstructing manipulative language and power tactics. It is scary good at developing manipulation strategies and inferring believable processes to achieve complex goals.
Humans also don't understand and are frequently faking understanding, which for many tasks is good enough. There are fundamental limits to what humans can do.
The AI of a few months ago before OpenAI's sycophancy was quite impressive, less so now which means it is being artificially stunted so more can be charged later. It means privately it is much better than what is public. I can't say it "understands," but I can say it outclasses many many humans. There are already numbers of tasks based around understanding where I would already choose an LLM over a human.
It's worth looking at bloom's taxonomy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_taxonomy): In the 2001 revised edition of Bloom's taxonomy, the levels were renamed and reordered: Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, and Create. In my opinion it is at least human competitive for everything but create.
I used to be very bearish on AI, but if you haven't had a "wow" moment when using one, then I don't think you've tried to explore what it can do or tested it's limits with your own special expertise/domain knowledge, or if you have then I'm not sure we're using the same LLMs. Then compare that experience to normal people, not your peer groups. Compare an LLM to people into astrology, crystal healing, or homeopathy and ask which has more "understanding."
The answer is scope. Singletons exist explicitly for the purpose of violating scoping for the convenience of not having to thread that dependency through constructors.
https://testing.googleblog.com/2008/08/root-cause-of-singlet...
The corollary is any system where users can leave without pain is a system that has low investment appeal.
If you talk to investors they will say things like "we need a moat." A moat is exactly the opposite of what the author wants in the systems they want to use. Those who have money to invest generally aren't those who have higher ideals than money.
Competitors will seek to destroy things that challenge their power. One could imagine paying for large amounts of bad faith content in order to destroy a system's value by incurring moderation costs. So now you have a system that is not only unappealing to invest in, but must also defend itself from the resource expenditures of competitors attacking it by spending resources on defense.
> If they understand that forcing you to enshittify the service will send all your users packing and leave them with nothing, they will very likely not force you to wreck your service.
They would have never invested in the first place, making this statement self-contradictory under conditions of philosophical rigor. There is no way under Doctorow's philosophy to build an institution that could challenge a stronger institution. There is a clear bootstrapping problem to his ideology.
All collective action problems involve the exercise of responsibility, doing what must be done even if it harms you or isn't short term optimal. The author is trying to exercise responsibility by holding an ideological line, but doesn't do much to challenge power other than to assert the illegitimacy of power itself as an absolutely corrupting force.
But institutional investment is what builds entities strong enough to challenge other entities power.
The ultimate failure is the irresponsibility of getting something for nothing, because the cost of that "nothing" is submission.
Burnout comes from the wheel not moving the car, not from the energy applied to moving the wheel.
Getting into a position of power requiring submission to the power hierarchy that grants power is a very keen insight. It means you are subject to all the corruptive forces everyone in those positions of power are also subject to. People will let you into positions of power if you wear their chains.
"Then you must become powerful and choose to use that power for good" is almost directly from CGP Grey's own analysis/those two videos.
Pournelle's iron law of bureaucracy is another way of looking at it: https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html
The man in the Arena speech tickles these topics and is unfortunately now more relevant than ever: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_in_a_Republic
On one hand you have people that are incapable of acting in their own best interest because of ignorance/illiteracy, which is largely the Chinese argument that justifies authoritarianism, which I find compelling because America is living through that right now. On the other you have authoritarians that are incapable of acting in any interest other than their own, while simultaneously no one is able to veto obviously bad decisions.
I think my problem with "absolute power corrupts absolutely" is that it says you should not seek out power because it will corrupt you, and I think that is a message that predators wish their prey to internalize.
Parents being authoritarians to their children is not automatically bad, although there is clearly good parental behavior and bad parental behavior, and I think the analysis of the behavior is much more interesting than the status as authoritarian, especially under current global conditions.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1/is-mathemat...
Unfortunately, I think the corollary is much more important. What this clearly shows is that on an extremely fundamental level, getting cheated or cooperating with people who act in bad faith is what creates the cheating. If you tolerate bad faith, you ask for more bad faith behavior.
If you believe in personal agency and personal responsibility and don't believe in magical thinking, then it shows on a very mathematical level that your own weakness, the ability for someone to take advantage of you without consequences, is what creates defection rather than cooperation.
The lesson is clear, that if you want a world you want to be a part of, then you must become powerful and choose to use that power for good.
Sometimes the label matches. There have been 4 people in high GOP positions who have sieg heiled. They aren't being labeled Nazis, they are objectively and factually Nazis. Germany's crackdown on the AFD is a response to power seizures/white supremacy in America. The GOP strategy writers literally wrote "there will be a revolution and it will be bloodless if the left allows it to be." There has very much been a declaration of "us or them", and that's not the type of thing that can be tolerated. You can't say "yes we'll work together with people who have said it's us or them."
Likewise your argument becomes a defense for pervasive systemic corruption, because the defense is no longer "we aren't corrupt," but "they're attacking us because we're the opposition, this is a power grab."
The gridlock that is a direct result of lack of corruption enforcement "because that would be a political power grab" became the mandate to overthrow the old establishment/ignore the constitution. What is happening in America right now is most influenced of all people by Merrick Garland who failed to prosecute a criminal because he was worried about enforcing the law against politicians which turns the justice system into a political weapon.
Unfortunately a weapon is just a weapon, it is a completely amoral object that amplifies the morality of it's wielder. Police officers carry weapons. It is not the weapon or that a weapon was used, but what the weapon is used to achieve that is worth analyzing.
That's the problem with side-ism, it implies that there are two equal sides with equal legitimacy and equal ability with equal strategies.
Game theory is deeply relevant, because on the two ends of the political spectrum are the cooperators (liberals) and people who think they should defect if they are able to win by doing so (conservatives). Conservatives don't cooperate when they should, and liberals don't defect when they should, and that's how those ideologies largely fail. Conservatives end up power grabbing (which is what I believe you're largely speaking in reference to) and creating dictatorship, while liberals fail to power grab and create dictatorship by ceding power.
I don't believe in 'side-ism'. A crackdown on the GOP would be a benefit for the rule of law while it still being in a perilous position, while a crackdown on the DNC is very a much a prelude to destroy the idea of rule of law altogether.
Destroying the opposition isn't obviously bad. Referencing side-ism implies that removing all the nazis from your government is a bad thing because it gives non-nazis unchecked anti-nazi political power. I view that as a good thing if the definition of nazi reflects reality (like in germany) rather than unreality (like russia/urkaine).
> I know, I lived it for a number of years, owned a business there, was deeply immersed in the goings on, and many frank discussions with our circle of well educated Chinese (many of whom were emigrating or at least getting their kids out of the country).
How predictable/arbitrary would you say the operating environment was?
Predictability suggests rule of law, while arbitrariness strongly suggests none. I'm not sure I would buy IP related examples as related to rule of law, and I would also likely try to distinguish between a hyper competitive environment between unequally resourced people and arbitrary executions of power, which I don't quite think are the same.
> faustian bargain
Timothy Snyder is my favorite political thinker, he recently wrote "On Freedom" and talks about "freedom from" vs "freedom to" at length. Money in many ways is freedom. If you don't have money you are not very free. So China getting richer, while in America Wages are stagnant and losing buying power year over year has implications for overall freedom. In many ways China is becoming more free and America less free if you think about "freedom to" and "freedom from" holistically rather than just "freedom from" which is a very American way of thinking about freedom. Chinese policy becomes a lot more defensible in terms of "freedom to" while it is completely indefensible in terms of "freedom from."
Where once I saw authoritarianism in China, now I ask how much of their behavior is actually an answer to the Paradox of Intolerance and how true the argument of the greater needs for ensuring order in a society at that scale (which from what I can tell is definitely propaganda used to sell it internally). Don't get me wrong, I completely see china as an authoritarian state rife with unchecked (and therefore arbitrary) power, but China is also functional in a way the US is very much not and that's become very interesting to think about, for me.
I'm interested in your analysis of China from a "freedom to" perspective.
> no opportunity to mount any resistance, and therefore "mei banfa"
Timothy Snyder calls this "the politics of eternity."
> middle class will support the government
Given what you've said so far, what does it mean for the middle class to not support the government? Consent is the core primitive of western political ideology and foundational idea of 'rule of law,' so the implication of withdrawing consent is certainly interesting.
The idea being that there is a gunaxi correlated "budget for corruption," but use of that budget comes with strings, and if corruption is engaged in, you are effectively signing a contract for results and that results forgives the corruption.
The mandarin first speaker who first said the idea didn't explain it exactly like that, but believed it completely and without question. The Cantonese first speaker who explained it more rigorously believed it in practice, but also that the corruption budget was far exceeding what was "planned" for creating crisis. Both asserted their own superiority to India, which also has a culture of corruption without a culture that demands results. Neither of them knew eachother.
Certainly when I heard that, my American ideological immune system was like "uh hu, that's certainly an interesting perspective." I was reminded of stories about how stringent military quartermasters are because it's understood that corruption is viral.
But it's hard to argue that China does not have results, long term thinking (kinda), and it appears to act on behalf of the public more.
Around the time of Hong Kong, I was fully on board with "Kantian universalize-able ideals restricting the actions of societies most rich and powerful" being a good definition for Rule of law, but since Trump round 2 in particular, I've come to analyze rule of law not by what it is, but what its outputs are supposed to be with the underlying assumption that any system that produces results must in some ways have structure that reflect Rule of Law.
Rule of law is when people, particularly leaders, subordinate to an idea/reality/reason rather than to a hierarchical structure/arbitrariness, so even if there is corruption consequences for failure and reward for success is rule of law-ish. I think that's even more visible when compared to the western standard of reward for failure and reward for success, more commonly stated as "rugged capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich" or "privatize profits and socialize risks."