I’m pretty capitalist, but the idea that markets are the smartest large-scale entities we’ll ever invent is deeply depressing. This is why I’m always intrigued by *interesting* distortions. Not tawdry cronyist power grabs, but other kinds of weird unplanned distortions.
Conversation
Analogous to why the thought that some massive gradient-descent based algorithm is going to be the best kind of AI we might ever invent 🤬😬🤢🤮😖
5
3
25
Interesting distortions include: reason (eg planning), urgent temporal forcing functions (climate change), low liquidity regimes and “art” pricing, ‘economics of pricelessness’, bureaucracy (= human GOFAI), smart contracts, HFT, exotic securitized instruments...
2
2
33
Problem with all these distortion ideas is that they are almost always easier to hack than use as intended. Cf the Lebowski theorem
Quote Tweet
The Lebowski theorem: No superintelligent AI is going to bother with a task that is harder than hacking its reward function
Show this thread
1
1
24
Still, out of every 100 ideas to do better than today’s market, if 99 are easier to hack than use, 1 is a genuine advance within or outside the ‘market’ paradigm.
So I like the idea of an eternal arms race between markets and imaginative attempts to distort them.
1
2
15
You’ll always end up with one of 3 things:
A new kind of criminal (99%)
A new kind of market (0.9%)
Something smarter than a market (0.1%)
1
1
28
Dumb view: both markets and distortions are eternal patterns.
Free-market fundamentalist view: markets evolve, distortions don’t
Reactionary view (both left and right): markets are static but my new kind of distortion will deliver utopia
Ze Truth: Arms race. Both evolve.
4
2
32
Replying to
The concept of a "market" is itself an attempt to distort the market.
1
1
3


