by thoradam on 10/17/23, 11:18 PM with 12 comments
by peatmoss on 10/18/23, 12:28 AM
I do worry we have target fixation for bad technological outcomes. When learning to ride a motorcycle, one of the first bits of advice is to look where you want to go, and you'll go there. If you stare intently at the deadly thing, there's a good chance you'll freeze up and run straight into it.
I was excited when I saw the Andreessen Horowitz posting yesterday, and expected to nod along in agreement. Instead, I saw in it something that looked like it escaped Twitter / X.
This too feels like it's wide of the mark, more of a rebuttal to yesterday's posting than a manifesto that inspires and stands on its own.
by jacomoRodriguez on 10/18/23, 9:44 AM
by Georgelemental on 10/18/23, 1:22 AM
Systems have emergent behaviors that arise from the their individual components, and the interactions between them. These behaviors limit the possible stable equilibria of the system as a whole.
In human systems, the components are people, whose behaviors are governed by human nature (itself a product of natural selection) and by incentives. Wishing it weren't so will not make human nature or incentives go away.
by throwaway9274 on 10/18/23, 2:05 AM
Words have meanings and we should adhere to them so communication does not break down into rhetoric.
It focuses on the social circumstances, or “human systems” for which it recommends re-engineering human societies to achieve a variety of goals.
It advocates for non-market economic systems, of which the only currently extant examples we have are socialist.
It advocates for slowing technological development to ease unspecified existential risks.
It offers that engineers can essentially make an inevitable societal decline a little bit less bad.
As much as Marc’s essay was a caricature of a considered techno-optimist position, this is the caricature of the inverse.
by baggy_trough on 10/18/23, 2:12 AM
by Warwolt on 10/18/23, 12:26 AM
by earthboundkid on 10/17/23, 11:36 PM