I would say, re Lemma A:

"[T]he most potentially DESTRUCTIVE organization in any civilization is always the government. First, the government has the most resources. Second, it has a monopoly of force."

Because, per Schmitt and Yarvin, politics is the distinction between friend and enemy. If no enemy, then no need for politics, and no need for government.

As to the most "effective" organization, I don't have a clue.

Expand full comment
Jun 22, 2022·edited Jun 22, 2022

Last year Yarvin argued an AI couldn't take over the internet because computer security was basically a solved problem. Now we've moved the goalposts to Mars and the AI has to be able to do it with just GET requests.

I'm not even sure that's impossible. I believe log4shell allowed arbitrary code execution from just GET requests. It was sitting around in an open source project for years, on millions of vulnerable systems. Only discovered because of intense autism of minecraft hackers. Reading any computer security stuff, and imagining your threat model is merely a nation state, is enough to keep anyone awake at night. Let alone a superintelligent being.

Why just GET requests? Are AIs never to be released into the real world, ever? How long until someone, somewhere builds an AI and screws up?

Let us hope AIs cost a lot of money to build, they will at least be safe in the same way that nukes and biolabs are "safe". Imagine a world where anyone with a trip to the hardware store could build an atom bomb... At least someone misplacing a vial of bat corona didn't actually kill everyone, this time.

Yudkowsky shoots himself in the foot with his overly detailed fantasy of Drexlerian nanotech. Is that really the important part of the story though? I could imagine an AI taking over the world with old fashioned clanking robots. Probably the easiest method would be a virus that kills 99% of humanity. Once it's in the real world, building things, does humanity have any chance?

Humanity went thousands of years without inventing the logarithm, let alone algebra or calculus. I don't find it hard to imagine a superintelligent being putting us in our place fast. The same way chess masters get put in their place by our existing primitive AI. Our brains are not evolved to do math and engineering. We are just the first creature to evolve to be accidentally capable of it, sometimes.

Superintelligence will be to human hackers, at least what Alpha zero is to chess masters. If you live in a world where everything is run by buggy networked computers, that might be enough. If that doesn't work out, well, it can be better at inventing nanotech than Drexler. If that doesn't work out, well, it can be better than our brilliant human virologists. If that doesn't work... how many paths are there? It only takes one.

Expand full comment

does any one have references to learn about this "One simple example: it is well-known in military theory that the ideal IQ difference between a commander and his subordinates should not exceed one standard deviation (roughly 15 IQ points)."

I already asked in reddit /r/military and they thought i was a troll

Expand full comment

Thought-provoking, as always, and full of insights. But Curtis, we need to know: what is altruism, who gets to be included in the population and how do we define their health? The self-regarding beneficence of the few in no way guarantees the wellbeing of the many.

The pharaohs gloried in the good of their people...but still insisted on forced-labour to build temples and palaces. The bones of the labourers recovered from the cemeteries of Egypt (common people did not get mummified) reveal the limits of this altruism.

Greek epic poetry offers revelations too. Homer refers to kings as shepherds of the people...but shepherds guard flocks in order that people can eat the flesh of their precious charges. The altruism of the empowered always incorporates sinister and predatory qualities.

Our present masters revel in their philanthropy and concern for the masses, especially for those overseas with potential value as the instruments of wage arbitrage directed at nominal co-citizens here. This beneficence coexists with rising mortality rates in the Rust Belt. Who gets excluded from the body of the people in the first place?

In Hegelian terms, the subject/object relationship disrupts the formation of a good common to all. Effective altruism for masters involves slaves thriving in servitude. For slaves effective altruism requires cohesion and loyalty amongst the servile. These differences cannot be assumed away.

I am a great believer in enlightened despotism myself, but don't see any prospects for this under current circumstances. The reformist-monarchs get picked off pretty quickly (Dom Pedro of Brazil, the Shah of Iran).

Expand full comment

That's the kind of plot twist I want to see around here

Expand full comment

I suspect Curtis has never actually dealt with the Center for Effective Altruism or Open Philanthropy, the big EA funders. Was a time when MacAskill and Tuna were the decision-makers, then they chose to professionalize the place and brought in dozens of admins and staff whose responsibilities are doubtless unknown even to themselves. They're now a decentralized, listing chaos with the Karnofskian goal of battling existential risks en route to a new galactic civilization that will evolve across the next many thousands to many millions or perhaps even billions of years. Imagine the challenge of measuring the impacts of actions undertaken in lowly 2022 on this vast Einsteinian tomorrowland.

Expand full comment

The best places to live in the world today are generally republics with somewhat limited governments and entrenched quasi-democratic procedures, the rule of law, and entrenched oligarchies of money and certification.

The worst or anyway the inferior places are run by a powerful individual, at least nominally.

Slate Star Codex did a devastating critique of Mr. Yarvin's monarchist theories.

Expand full comment

I hate to say it but Curtis is becoming all too similar to the Effective Altruism bots he so much likes to scorch. Karnofsky, arch-theorist of AI existential risk and of a new galactic civilization expected in perhaps a billion years, appears to have become Curtis’s mechanical rabbit. As Karnofky’s musings become ever more abstract, otherworldly, suprahuman, so do Curtis’s grow more geometric, more diagrammatic, more ingrown, more self-pleasuring (at the expense of us-pleasuring). The more madness, the more liquification, the more civilizational tossing and turning, the more Curtis doubles down on his monarchy instruction manual, alas without helpful drawings and the syntactical hilarities typical of a Mumbai scribe.

As performance art it is OK, if hardly great. But this isn’t what we pay Curtis the big bucks for. Rather than spend our subscription fees drinking fine fine at gatherings in New York and Lisbon, Curtis might return to his work of 2020-21 when he was still working to answer: as everything in every direction turns to dust and lies, what must be done? The rest is just post-liberal, pre-apocalyptic doodling albeit with a sharp crayon

Expand full comment

It's not intelligence, it's will [Nietzsche, 1887]

Expand full comment

Thanks for talking me off the AI cliff! “Intelligence can’t defeat ignorance “ - love it

Expand full comment

I do not think the way a government is organized is the most determining variable in the equation of civilian outcome living under governments. I think it is more rudimentary. It is so rudimentary in fact, that it is intellectually fucking boring. I think it is the astonishingly horrendous lack of genuine communication between human beings with ideologically opposing beliefs. The underlying factor is the human egotistical instinct to defend the retarded ideas we have in our instinctually triggered minds, regardless of information or ideas presented before us.

Just imagine how complex this challenge is to solve, if it were true that communication is the final puzzle to solve. And how freakishly boring wouldn't that be...?

Expand full comment

Lemma A is not necessarily true. There are many global corporations who rival countries in power.

Expand full comment

It seems that the best way to get new content is to annoyingly nitpick, I'm glad to have been part of it. Still, I think that this wasn't a pure clarification and was more or less centered on his first argument and he abandoned the "natural slaves" one. So I'm not really sure how the argument would be different with HTTP GET requests vs POST requests versus just giving it an android body and have it assemble its domino proteins on its own.

Expand full comment

I guess time would be well spent reading up on accountable monarchy and how to establish one with our current HR thing. #breading # accountable to its healthy people Let's find a path to healthy commoners and see what that is before there is no need for commoners. #HealthyCountryClub

Expand full comment

In truth, everything has diminishing returns, because everything has a cost, if only opportunity costs.

You know, it's been a while since I've read any of the rats, but I seem to recall their definition of intelligence as being something like "systematic winning". That might be interesting for you to ponder, because it's really not at all the same as your "a way of recognizing patterns in the world."

In their view, it's a *very* specific kind of pattern recognition. It implies goal-directed behavior, a distinction between victory and loss. To the rat, winning more means you probably have higher intelligence, having a higher intelligence means you are going to win more. They are definitionally equivalent.

It's not the best definition. Very smart people lose all the time. Theirs is much closer to what more normal people would call "competence", or even just "power". Predictably, equating both of these with "intelligence" just produces confusion.

And worse, it's all self-indulgent, because honestly the people who become rats probably rolled very high for INT, and quite low on CHA. And also probably quite low on WIS because if they had reasonable stats there they'd just pick up a fucking barbell and stop letting other dudes fuck their women.

Expand full comment

"Whom reminded me"? Surely not.

"Who reminded me," please.

Expand full comment