Less Wrong always makes me laugh. "Updatelessness" is basically just simple integrity: I will follow through on an agreement even when it benefits me to renege on the deal. People who lack integrity will "update:"
"I'll give you a loaf of bread for $5... OK, thank you for paying me $5 for this bread. Now that I have your money, I've updated on the situation and realize it makes sense to leave with the bread."
"Will you tutor me in mathematics for $30? ...OK thank you for tutoring me in mathematics today. Now that I know how to solve these problems, I've updated on the situation and realize that I won't need you again, so I don't think I'll pay."
There is a reason why evolution selected us to have integrity: we earn reputations. If every interaction we ever have is one-off, and can't be transmitted to others, then reputation doesn't exist, and short-sighted selfishness prevails.
I found it very illuminating about the Rationalist movement when Scott Alexander offered a prize in a survey based on prisoners' dilemma style competition: he found two people who were similar to pit together as prize winners; even similarity was not enough to encourage them to both cooperate. https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/01/20/ssc-survey-results-2020/ The contest was anonymous, and occurred over one-shot, so fine, why not defect? Yet given that the winner was playing with a similar other, shouldn't basic altruistic tendencies have come to the rescue? Alas not. Low Honesty-Humility seems to be rather a problem for rationalists.
What do you mean by cross-insurance? (I'm guessing this was a joke)
By the way! I think I was wrong to draw that conclusion about rationalists - they actually cooperated at around 2/3 on the survey I cited, which isn't unusual. And when asked to play the prisoner's dilemma against a person of similar demographic, they cooperated at a rate of around 5/6. That difference is interesting, but it's what would be predicted by evolutionary models of altruism: cooperate with similar others more readily than strangers. Too bad one of the chosen winners was a defector anyway!
Band life in the paleolithic when/where non-related peeps share food and resources while socially negotiating who does what with the kids and when (it's not possible to hunt successfully with kids in tow and hunting is never garanteed so the enery expenditure has to be hedged with surer forms). Practise at this leads to cross-band insurance in more uncertain & unpredictable times. This leads to the world where we should ourselves into altruism, and wonder if it can be done rationally, but I suspect evolution doesn't care about rationalism -- individually as Homo economus (nor the group-individuallism which group selection tries to cover). HEre I am cribbing from various primatlogists and evolutoinary anthropologists (like de Waals). HUman evolution is about the children, not about being the father, which a lot of fitness gurus get bushwhacked by in evolutionary just-so stories. Evolution doesn't care about the individual neither, doesn't even care about logic. But I will say here again that if tele-anything exists evolution seems to have no way to select for it.
...Oh! You mean tribal / forager / primitive / hunter-gatherer life. Is this the way Australians talk about things? "Bands of ancient tribespeople" --> "Band?"
> I suspect evolution doesn't care about rationalism
Though it likely depends on what you mean by "rationalism," but I agree very strongly on this. Possibly some rationalist could build a "rational" argument for why it is to your individual cells' advantage to cooperate with each other, but ultimately the advantage is "You'll continue synthesizing ATP for longer than otherwise, isn't that fun?" and "cells with which you will never come into contact have a greater chance of chance of their DNA being more similar to the DNA in your own nucleus, isn't it great?"
A holy book is updateless. Thus having committed an act of faith, your learning swivels around it like a pole dancer. The history of your choreography then looks like it has a structure, when really it has a frozen choice. Thus agency begets tradition/structuralism even, that removes it self, its soul, but the dance can continue without us. The robots works our flesh.
Less Wrong always makes me laugh. "Updatelessness" is basically just simple integrity: I will follow through on an agreement even when it benefits me to renege on the deal. People who lack integrity will "update:"
"I'll give you a loaf of bread for $5... OK, thank you for paying me $5 for this bread. Now that I have your money, I've updated on the situation and realize it makes sense to leave with the bread."
"Will you tutor me in mathematics for $30? ...OK thank you for tutoring me in mathematics today. Now that I know how to solve these problems, I've updated on the situation and realize that I won't need you again, so I don't think I'll pay."
There is a reason why evolution selected us to have integrity: we earn reputations. If every interaction we ever have is one-off, and can't be transmitted to others, then reputation doesn't exist, and short-sighted selfishness prevails.
I found it very illuminating about the Rationalist movement when Scott Alexander offered a prize in a survey based on prisoners' dilemma style competition: he found two people who were similar to pit together as prize winners; even similarity was not enough to encourage them to both cooperate. https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/01/20/ssc-survey-results-2020/ The contest was anonymous, and occurred over one-shot, so fine, why not defect? Yet given that the winner was playing with a similar other, shouldn't basic altruistic tendencies have come to the rescue? Alas not. Low Honesty-Humility seems to be rather a problem for rationalists.
the world is not a rational construct, it's why we should
well the cross-insurance is rational I guess
What do you mean by cross-insurance? (I'm guessing this was a joke)
By the way! I think I was wrong to draw that conclusion about rationalists - they actually cooperated at around 2/3 on the survey I cited, which isn't unusual. And when asked to play the prisoner's dilemma against a person of similar demographic, they cooperated at a rate of around 5/6. That difference is interesting, but it's what would be predicted by evolutionary models of altruism: cooperate with similar others more readily than strangers. Too bad one of the chosen winners was a defector anyway!
>>What do you mean by cross-insurance?
Band life in the paleolithic when/where non-related peeps share food and resources while socially negotiating who does what with the kids and when (it's not possible to hunt successfully with kids in tow and hunting is never garanteed so the enery expenditure has to be hedged with surer forms). Practise at this leads to cross-band insurance in more uncertain & unpredictable times. This leads to the world where we should ourselves into altruism, and wonder if it can be done rationally, but I suspect evolution doesn't care about rationalism -- individually as Homo economus (nor the group-individuallism which group selection tries to cover). HEre I am cribbing from various primatlogists and evolutoinary anthropologists (like de Waals). HUman evolution is about the children, not about being the father, which a lot of fitness gurus get bushwhacked by in evolutionary just-so stories. Evolution doesn't care about the individual neither, doesn't even care about logic. But I will say here again that if tele-anything exists evolution seems to have no way to select for it.
> Band life
...Oh! You mean tribal / forager / primitive / hunter-gatherer life. Is this the way Australians talk about things? "Bands of ancient tribespeople" --> "Band?"
> I suspect evolution doesn't care about rationalism
Though it likely depends on what you mean by "rationalism," but I agree very strongly on this. Possibly some rationalist could build a "rational" argument for why it is to your individual cells' advantage to cooperate with each other, but ultimately the advantage is "You'll continue synthesizing ATP for longer than otherwise, isn't that fun?" and "cells with which you will never come into contact have a greater chance of chance of their DNA being more similar to the DNA in your own nucleus, isn't it great?"
I've just learned my 'refereee' died a week or so ago
https://www.fransdewaalmemorial.com/
A holy book is updateless. Thus having committed an act of faith, your learning swivels around it like a pole dancer. The history of your choreography then looks like it has a structure, when really it has a frozen choice. Thus agency begets tradition/structuralism even, that removes it self, its soul, but the dance can continue without us. The robots works our flesh.
Have you ever played Cultist Simulator? I think you would absolutely love the writing there.
will have a gander
What did you think?
currently migrating this post and the comments are quite re-framing (interference is updating not chaosing)
had a peruse of the games presence around the place, but have not played as yet