Conversation

Replying to
The philosophical challenge is to figure out if there can in fact be a better-than-Darwin regime at all. The null hypothesis is no, and argument for that is some a no-free-lunch theorem model of reality which says apparent free lunches of invention/discovery are illusions
1
14
Both Darwinism and healthy competition are high-surplus regimes. The question is whether high surpluses can be realized through systematic means by a high-coordinating social species that does *not* rely on brute force blind-watchmaker optimization driven by loser-extinction
2
18
There is a case to be made that “science” is a kind of epistemic fossil fuel that exists in finite stores and causes big externalities when used, and once we “run out” we are back to blind watchmaker mode of surplus dis overt. Machine learning actually embodies this assumption.
1
16
Without a discoverable renewable environmental surplus, the best you can do is a spoils system with good rules so you take turns extracting it till it’s gone. But you can do worse — that’s looting. Variation with natural deselection of all because there’s no new value to adapt to
2
12
The gloomy assessment of the last 50 years is we went from healthy competition to spoils to looting, counting from the first oil shock and rise of Japan
1
17
Just realized x axis is “loser doesn’t get to/gets to continue playing” Y axis is tweak on negative to positive sum focused on non-direct-player externalities The weakness of IPD cooperation models is they don’t model passive stakeholders who benefit from/suffer externalities
1
8
Game theory basically has a frame problem same as AI due to way more passive players than active for any competition
1
13
Note to self Top right: Win-win Top-left: Win-and-let-die Bottom-right: Mutual exploitation (alternating win/loss) Bottom-left: Lose-lose Live and let live is not actually a thing. At most you get less live and let die.
3
7