abandonliberty

Yes!

This is the multi-polar (or Moloch) problem, where (ruthless) individual rationality leads to collective ruin.

Unless the system makes it unprofitable, ruthlessness will always out-perform good behavior. Players who make suboptimal (ethical) decisions will lose over time. Corruption will outperform unless the cost of that corruption outweighs the benefit of it. The root cause isn't a moral failing of the players.

If incentives are aligned so that the winnginest behavior is also the most desirable, it doesn't matter if there are defective or unscrupulous players. We can harness selfish ambition for the collective good.

E.g. CEO compensation and behavior differences between Japan/USA, Potlatch (wealth redistribution) festivals among the Pacific Northwest indigenous.

> in order to forge a new identity

Both Russia and Ukraine trace their identity to the Kievan Rus. If there's a new identity here, it's not Ukraine's.

Russian subjugation under the mongols continued under autocratic Muscovy, the Russian Tsardom, and eventually the Russian Empire, with peasants trapped under serfdom -- while Ukraine experienced the enlightenment and renaissance much more like the rest of Western Europe.

This led to such transformation that, despite Ukraine gradually losing its independence to Russia since 1654, it was still the industrial heart of the USSR 300 years later despite Russian efforts to modernize the rest of the empire and crush the Ukrainian culture and language.

Beyond industrial capacity, one could debate the superiority of Ukraine's enlightenment ideals around intellectualism, humanism, individual rights, etc. I would choose the one that is better for most citizens and enables greater overall prosperity.

Your comment here is the latest propaganda in hundreds of years of efforts to delegitimize and destroy Ukrainian identity. Luckily we still have history books.

>While Surrounded by Idiots was generally well-received by readers, many critics, psychologists, and psychotherapists have labeled the book as nonsense due to the pseudoscientific nature of the DISC assessment, which the book is based on. In 2018, the book's author, Thomas Erikson, was awarded the title "Fraudster of the Year" by the Swedish organization Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning.[1]

Does a smart person discount this book or not?

I'm really interested in this, too. Class warfare extends to most of the West. We live in an era of unprecedented propaganda efficiency getting effectively weaponized to divide and conquer us. It's enabling the unthinkable to happen.

They'll perfect methods of manipulating enough of the people to stop the guillotines. They have come rather far already. Progressive resource scarcity, instability, insecurity, etc, will drive people limbic, where they're even easier to control.

Yes.

As long as we have more compute than the people who want to manipulate us differently, and an ability to get sufficient attention (advertising, influencers, etc.) while they own the communication channels.

Do you think it's feasible? What would we need?

I asked AI to explain activation vectors. How much did it get wrong?

Great, the bots have arrived.

Wow, I was hoping this was an option to not have the stupid center-mounted huge screen. I'd pay extra for analog controls.

A great book on this is 'Active Measures'. Most things have an organic start, which are then amplified / co-opted by various actors.

The concept of Nuclear Winter first came up in the USA, then the Russians caught wind of it and claimed they had independently reached the same conclusions. This helped them turn public opinion against the deployment of more missile bases in Europe... conveniently after they had already deployed theirs.

It's unclear which message you're trying to convey, but your math checks out.

The net CO2 impact of natural processes is -19Gt/yr. Humans add +37G/yr for a net +18Gt. If we stopped everything, you'd expect -19Gt/yr; however, natural sinks like the ocean will start off-gassing, cutting the improvement to about half.

Because of how long this switch will take, most IPCC options need 100 to 1000 Gt of net CO2 removal by the end of the century to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees.

A real consideration for warehouse staff in some areas.

In addition, a good human knows when to ask for help or feedback. Our AIs are always just as confident whether their output is brilliant or terrible.

That's more or less the opposite of what I'd want.

I love this insight, and it generalizes. Just swapping out humans with AIs won't just fix everything, because many of the biggest problems are structural or emergent.

I'm hopeful that we can use AI models to pressure test better options of social organization etc.