Conversation

Replying to and
that's definitely true as well, but not what I'm flagging here. Even for very social friendly extrovert people who get a lot of energy from investing in friends, making that the *only* goal to optimize for is imo dangerous to the psyche, a kind of gollumizing one-ring effect
2
5
C'mon this is like a cartoon darwinism version of solve-for-friendship 🤣 "Only the friendliest survive!" "Survival of the friendliest!" "Friendliness selection!" "Nature red in tooth, claw, and LinkedIn connections!" The airport pop-sci book titles write themselves
1
1
I think what you and Visa are doing is more sophisticated than this cartoon, but I think you haven't yet found the right language for talking about it properly. So "solve for friendship" is almost a placeholder for something more interesting, which is why I restrain the jokes :D
3
4
Replying to and
Re: Darwinism we did seem to group-evolve to select for sociability. I think what used to be a survival tool became a subliminal goal in the infinite game sense, yeah. Good data also on popularity / talent / success (bad news for disagreeable people like me 😋)
1
I think any qualitative reduction of mechanics of evolution to a legible- stable objective function is basically not-even-wrong in the same way seeking "explainability" of AI is not-even-wrong. It's a narrative fallacy. There's no "hero trait" making evolution a hero's journey.
1
Replying to and
Yeah but I didn’t say evolution had goals… To me that sounds like saying mathematics has goals 😋 We’re talking about humans making goals for themselves, whether they know it or not. Some goal-making seems to be more rewarded by society, thus starting loops. So agree.