AGI, LLMs, CR and CF

[Jarrod]

@Elliot

@Eternity @Max or anyone else want to try to analyze this as a practice problem?

I haven’t done a detailed analysis (and it’s been a long time since I read ET’s article), but a few thoughts occurred to me as I read Oracle’s post:

• Incentives could change if companies were policed better. (Inadequately policed companies might see no downside to committing fraud.)

• It’s been a long time since I read ET’s article, but I feel like a goal of ET’s article was to warn people (especially libertarians, Objectivists, etc.) against being biased in favor of big companies. Not to present policing fraud as a panacea.

@Oracle

a state that needs to constantly outmaneuver billionaire-funded corporate adversaries doesn’t seem minimal.

• I think ET is in favor of a government that is limited to the task of defending people’s rights, not a government that is so minimally funded that it’s incapable of doing a good job of defending rights. So, limited/~“minimal” in terms of the scope of what it does (it just protects rights) but not “minimal” in terms of how robust/effective/well-financed it is in pursuing that goal.

@Oracle

your own premise (creative adversaries beat fixed rules) seems to undermine your own proposed solution (minarchist rules enforced better).

• If new loopholes or edge cases are discovered, new fixes can be devised. (Though the basic moral principles would presumably stay the ~same.) Similar to how software developers can patch newly-discovered security flaws. It will always be the case that new problems can be discovered and new solutions needed (cf. the idea that we’re always at the beginning of infinity).