Regarding what you’ve said after the 15:00 mark, i remember myself ~20yo and being totally grabbed/infected by the capitalist metric, doing things like looking at paintings and only seeing them in terms of their price, or looking at people and appreciating them in terms of their $. Another thing related to what you’re saying here is the fact that people ignore that the market has stopped _"finding the value of stuff"_ and started manipulating people’s minds (with the best means neuroscience offers and $$$ can buy) in order to _"manufacture the perceived value of stuff"._ Just look at people, from the richest to the poorest, we’re zombified, injected with memetic parasites, drones in the service of a system.
I have the solution to Moloch. If not, tell me what is wrong with this logic: 1. As long as we must compete against each other to survive, we are forced to sacrifice the long term common good for our short term advantage. 2. The sacrifice of long term common good will lead to catastrophic destruction or the competition to survive will lead to mutual destruction with high tech. 3. The only way to end the competition to survive is to become one global team and all work towards one shared goal. 4. The only goal we can all share voluntarily is one that benefits everyone equally 5. The only goal that benefits everyone equally is that of meeting EVERYONE'S fundamental needs (including emotional needs that if not met lead to pathologies) 6. The only way to meet everyone's fundamental needs without a competition to decide what conditions must be met or whether or not they have been met is by meeting EVERYONE'S needs UNCONDITIONALLY. 7. The only way to have everyone accept this goal voluntarily is by inspiring them to do so through education about fundamental emotional needs and persuasion. 8. Fundamental human needs are necessary to be understood because they are fundamental to our mental and physical health. Most people don't know all humans have the same fundamental emotional needs nor what they are. So most people, even intellegent and powerful are mostly wandering around blind to their needs and those of all other humans they live with and depend on. Therefore, raising awareness about them is the single most effective action we can take to defeat Moloch and create a better world.
9. Yes…Let’s Do this! & always read the small print,notice the little things & check the little devils in them details….& our common suffering is the key to the door to Forever Summer…give thanx 4 the comment section Tintersection ..
These ideas are part of the venus project along with ecological sustainability. Cybernetics applied to economic and social systems is something I'm interested in. Project Cybersyn is a case study that I can use for that.
Very optimistic and "nice" thoughts from you but I would consider this very naive as well given the fact that we all play this built-in social status game which is incompatible with your idea of " something that benefits everyone equally ". The social status game we are all playing is based on the individuals position in the hierarchy meaning having more of whatever is considered valueable relative to everyone else. I might sound pessimistic or cynical but this is what I have observed from my own point of view.
@ it’s just a question of reprogramming..or recoding the data..water is naive that’s how it accumulates all that info..no one in their right mind would do that!
@@primordialstate Your reply isn't refuting any logic in my deduction You simply don't believe it's possible to make everyone equally happy. That isn't what I said should be the goal. It isn't possible to have a world of equality for all but we can all work towards something that benefits all equally. My point is that only a goal that benefits everyone equally can be a goal shared by all. And that only if we all share a goal can we stop fighting against each other. You can simply refuse to believe it's possible but that isn't useful nor practical. What is practical is finding a solution to move forward and solve the challenge we face whether we believe we will solve it or not, we don't have a choice but to try. Human needs can be determined scientifically. What is a need is that which is indespensable for humans to be healthy. We can discover what a dog needs, we can discover what a rose needs, we can discover what a human needs to not develop pathologies. A society that works towards no human developing pathologies is a society ever human can want to support.
Great talk! I just watched Idiocracy (the 2007 movie, not today's real-life imitation) and I see a two loopholes in reputation: 1) buy the reputation chain, Brondo supremacy achieved, and 2) given enough time everything eventually becomes its opposite, i.e. today's revolutionary values are tomorrow's dogmas (meaning an entity's reputation will eventually become a cynical shell, e.g. Orwell's Ministry of Truth)
"everything eventually becomes its opposite" I don't think this is some sort of rule. Given long enough, sure, most anything that can happen will happen, but Orwell's 'Ministry of Truth' was chosen for it's irony, and wouldn't work well in a society where people had more freedom!
I don't like how he ignores that collaboration within group is what defines us as human. He talks as if life started in post agricultural society. When humans have evolved and lived most of our existance in less hierarchical structures.
Your statement is brief, but I tend to disagree, at least to a degree. Here's why : first of all, 'collaboration within group' is indeed a very human trait, but it is certainly not restricted only to humans within the scope of the living world. For example - just look at ants. (Or bees). Now to your second point - it would be hard for me to rebuke your claim (or not) given I wasn't there for the vast span of time across which our species evolved, but I would have to assume that even in a pre-agricultural & civilizational era, there must have actually been very robust hierarchical structures in-place within any given tribe, and serious warfare over land & food supplies & such would break out occasionally. To perhaps get a very privileged & narrow glimpse of such a time in our distant ancestry, take a look a how a troup of chimpanzees or bonobos might behave, for example.
Some of these problems used to be resolved by religions, taboos, etc when each individual internalized common values and there was no need for centralized coordination
I don't think we've ever been better coordinated than we are right now. Religion is memetic psychosis that often leads people to do bad things to each other or disregard dangers.
The jiu-jitsu way you leveraged the zoom-out technique to pivot mass extinction events not as survivor bias, but as a catalyst for higher orders of complexity triggered me in a good way! It first reminded me of Charlie Wilson's War - Zen master and the little boy (it’s on youtube, great monologue and maybe you're Gust, Moloch your distress, and the prevailing short-sighted wisdom Charlie.. but maybe not.. :0) It then triggered me to ‘zoom out’ and think of ancient mysticism, particularly the alchemical process of transforming lead into gold. The hermetic 'vessel' represents a system under pressure. Within this vessel, duress generates heat, heat fosters pliability, and pliability enables recombination. This mirrors Darwin’s concept of environmental pressure selecting the best mutations, but just for that time.. because as we've learned.. even the 'best at that time' can lead to a planetary extinction like the Great Oxidation Event. And perhaps, for human society, duress serves a similar function, driving us toward higher complexity? Yes! Agreed! Too much duress could lead to our demise! But too little fosters complacency. Doesn’t the best art come from duress? This leaves me with an over-simplified framework just now: dissatisfaction (duress/tyranny/futility) generates heat (creativity), which enables recombination (new social paradigms). Ideally, this avoids demise in the process, such as a planet-level extinction. On the other hand, collaboration often yields wide-spread satisfaction, which can lead to complacency and eventually creativity-stagnation; which could make us all sitting ducks for demise as well. Do you think we'd learn to protect ourselves from a life threatening asteroid if we were still happy sustainable hunter gatherers? Huge leap.. but just say'n! :0). Don't know, but this dichotomy: duress as a driver of progress versus a potential trigger for collapse, seems intrinsic to our human condition, maybe even our cognitive make-up? The question then is how to navigate this tightrope while we still have the planetary resources to course-correct? Can we leverage dissatisfaction to spark innovation without succumbing to self-destruction? I think reputation markets and global transparency offer potential safeguards, but these tools are still too vulnerable to exploitation. That said, i do have some hope.. with increased planetary transparency of human activity, reputation-like markets do have a better chance.. as now we don’t just have Freedom of Speech.. we have something that never really existed before X and Lex and Rogan, and now You…. Freedom of Reach! Mainstream media historically owned Reach, and since mainstream media really just carried the water for the nation state there really was never the freedom of reach for our freedom speech like we have today. So i think our call to action is to protect Freedom of Reach now just as passionately as we did freedom of Speech in the past! We need to fight censorship and cancellation like never before. I think that's the best defence against the terminal aspects of Moloch that is truly is in our control today; and the best chance for reputation-like markets, or just letting us all vote better with our wallet. Just my initial thoughts-thanks again for the video! Really thought provoking!
I have another frame to view the Fermi paradox from. Civilizations based on unchecked growth are unsustainable and die off before they colonize galaxies. This would leave small sustainable civilizations throughout the universe that are hard to detect.
Interesting. And I wonder how hospitable or hostile these different colonies would be (ours included), upon being visited by another. §H!+ could fly in aaaaaaallllllll sorts of directions. (and at lightning speed).
So glad i stumbled on this episode. Thank you both. I've been interested in this topic of reputation but specifically in the digital world. I would love to join the sub reddit if you make one.
Most important and beautiful theorem of physics says that, if energy is conserved and if you do the same experiment in different moments of time you will have the same results. Same if impulse is conserved if you do the same experiment in different places in space you will have same results. But that theorem come relatively late. On the other side is math and psychoanalysis. Axiom of choice says that if you have two different measures you can find one universal measure that covers both initial measures, in other words money always win in measuring things. And psychoanalysis says that we start our development in relation to one single total/totalitarian object. So totalitarian is possibly not rule of the universe but is very deep in our nature and culture. Learning supposes that we do different experiments...on the edge somewhere between repetition of what we know and unknown. And here we come to quality of education, totalitarianism is good in self reproduction as we know from communist experiment. Coordination is great point of view but we come to S. Wolfram's theory of automates and what we can't predict before the end of computation...with growing human population we are most likely to fail in inventing more and more complex coordinations...?... One interviewer and shorter video is better even if we don't have a final answer. Thanks.
A chain reaction of caring about one's reputation started by a big financial player is a great way of conceptualizing how to start the change toward more constructive global coordination, or exactly the kind of thing that I've been working on lately under the umbrella of protopianism with Luke Macmichael. I'm definitely putting that into a book of protopian short sci-fi stories I'm writing right now.
The primary question of a reputation market is what we value and what the best way to get there is. This seems to be the fundamental question of civilization/government/coordination already. The problem is we are often mistaken, and fundamentally disagree, about the best way to achieve the outcomes that we value. Not sure how such a system would solve for these very difficult problems, rather than essentially recreating a virtual simulation of the situation/debate that already exists.
I don't think its just a problem of "information", but also a huge problem of "instant gratification", individual and collective tendency to do what "feels good now" even if it hurts us long term (like fossil fuels). Its almost an addiction
As long as we respect unjust hierarchies, this will be true. We have to first reorient the whole view of hierarchy and how it can or can't be climbed. A merit based system makes sense, but obviously that's the very thing that's been gamed for decades. As long as we try to attach metrics to social status, this may be impossible to overcome
To be honest, the only hope I have is AGI. I dont think human beings will ever be able to do the right thing consistently, we have to get someone better to govern us. The risks are apocalyptical, but in my eyes we are going towards extinction either faster or slower. The only "new" road is to let someone else take the reigns.
Reputational markets is a terrible idea. It's basically a social credit score for corporations. He's essentially describing ESG but where anyone, not just a BlackRock, can determine the targets. This will be gamed by competitors. Muddy the information ecosystem; control the narrative by flooding the conversation with causal stories that shift outcome judgments and prompt value re-evaluations. Controlling the narrative will be the lifeblood of companies. We wind up in dystopia again.
Fair point, but waiting until there's a system that cant be gamed....might wait a longtime....probably past windows of opportunity to do some sensible good things. There's no attempt at adapting positively ahead of the $hit curve coming that doesn't require a leap of faith & sacrifice....that includes status quo - do nothing approaches. Active conscious engagement by as much of humanity as possible joining together to solve common problems is the only way. Or being back-classed down the evolutionary "civilisation" ladder. But maybe we have to 2 steps back before 1 forward.... or the other way round if we're lucky. There's going to some musical chairs with political systems, borders & resources coming to a main street near you real soon. Best foot forward in good faith while eyes open to big picture & just trying to make your local community more resilient in a realistic way. No basket weaving hippies out of their heads licking the back of invasive Joe Rogens, or hiding in billionaire bunkers re creating molch worship for capitalism 2.0 post ashes self disabling "upgrade"' Get your townhalls have some conversation with your local farmers, producers & start with your local economy & that's a WinWin, even the everything else has gone to $hit
@garrenosborne9623 this is basically right. The one escape clause might be AI if it works out ok. But I feel like the billionaires are just waiting until the robots are good enough and the rest of us will just be an annoyance.
Voici un résumé en-gros : les multinationales vont pousser fort pour que la Crypto devienne monnaie courante, et que les plus pigmentés d'entre-nous fassent gaffe.
@@rigelb9025 Les "cryptos" ont tant de caractéristiques différentes , en quoi cela les arrangent ? surtout les monnaies déflationnistes qui ne poussent pas à la consommation ?
I would say it's more akin to reincarnation. We can kill it, but it likely will emerge again elsewhere. The ironic thing is Moloch kills itself, as capitalism is bound to do without us constantly giving it life-saving surgery
i think norman and moloch r the same thing 'norm' is the mechanical bureaucratic [backend] aspect of moloch if moloch is ultimatly ecolution then norm is the procedure/system/structure of evoulution tht makes the whole thing possible [the devil is in the detail]
where we are now is the result of a sucumstances incentives and choises and all we do now is trying to escape the resuts of that my gues is that sill only make it worse the result of all that is ppl knowing the shit is about to hit the fan and adjusting accordingly wich in turn accelerates this process of the hard reset i'm not sure there is a way out of this other than a hard reset (collaps)
Complete bullocks, scores have completely failed and harmed companies and leave the system open for bad actors to manipulate scoring arbitrarily to hamstring competitors using bad press and other dubious tactics. Scoring is stupid this isn’t kindergarten, common sense needs to reign supreme…
I think Kristian's take on competition in Nature is a bit outdated, given how common commensal and symbiotic relationships are in nature. Perhaps he means competition within a species, because competition between species is quite rare.
Capitalism is NOT "natural" selection. Before 2008, a large number of people knew the markets were unstable and going to crash. The exact date wasn't predictable, but it was clear it was coming. And the "recovery" was anything but natural. Bailing out the big banks which benefited a small number of rich people, while letting many middle and lower class Americans lose their homes was not a natural selection process. It was controlled and coordinated at the top, using very anti capitalistic means. Natural selection would have been to let the failed banks fail. This is just one example. We all know about the FED and how markets are manipulated regularly. My claim is not that we need more natural selection or capitalism, but to do away with competition based systems entirely. Cooperation is necessary to our survival! And if we have a global civilization, with this level of technological power, it must be global cooperation. Not that this will be easy to make happen....
I see what you mean, but in this world in which we currently live, G¤D is a tax-exempt corporation, 'Darwinism' is social, natural disasters are engineered, and only a select few individuals who belong to a small group at the top of the pecking ladder will get to eat the lion's share. We call them the FED.
I was thinking that. The CNT/FAI and project cybersyn had coordination, but the nazis and the USA had military power. We should work towards a world, though that isn't "might make right"
Lost me at "design". The very pretence that someone or a small group of people can know better about how society should work than the rest is by itself how we get into all kind of trouble.
That's doesn't really make sense. This means you think the best system will just emerge organically without anyone having thought about it before. Some people are just far smarter than others. It's a huge distribution. I'm not saying that people shouldn't work together and take input from all over. Quite the contrary. But clever people need to think about the ideas we want to discuss before they can begin to build. If this is done with humility, no one is acting like they have all the answers, and we can account for the majority of people's fundamental needs
@@MattAngiono Some people knows better than others is not the same as some people knows better than the rest collectively. That's where people get carried away. The best system doesn't emerge automatically without individual conscious choice, but emerge from individual making the best choice for themselves without imposing on others.
@powerpig99 like I said, I'm not in favor of any kind of top down approach, but I do think it's a statement of fact that a small number of people have the best system loosely in their minds already. When it comes to any idea, there are always frontrunners that understand a concept before everyone else. Working our way towards this better system isn't meant to simply be led by such people, but we should be paying attention to potential figures who have good ideas and trying to give the ideas themselves the momentum. I don't think at the end that these people should care about the credit of "creating" the idea, as that just recreates the kind of hierarchy that we are trying to move beyond, and suggests they didn't have the proper understanding of the predicaments to begin with
@@MattAngiono There will always be better ideas for us to make better decisions individually, which leads to a better functioning society. Again it is not the same as a few people can know better than the rest combined therefore can claim or entrust to make decisions for society as a whole. Ironically, the more you take away individual rights away, the more it leads to bad societal outcome.
Of course 2 winners in colonization and exploitation would advocate that just tweaking an unjust system will allow us to continue our savage game and feel better.
2:55 "same thing when it comes to climate change, right? Like in order to survive as a business, you need to be more profitable…" Quite uncoupled. But maybe he has something. You obviously think so, so → _Watch Later_
I usually enjoy your videos Liv, but an incredible waste of time this one is, interviewing a naive delusional dude who talks utter nonsense with so much authority.
@@strewens I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. I understand the term means negative entropy, but I'm not sure how you're applying here with that statement. I think human beings are part of a complex system that is indeterminate. In other words, we could increase complexity for many centuries, or we could wipe ourselves with a stupid mistake in technology, as is possible with nuclear
@@MattAngiono yes we are negentropic because we increase complexity and organisation and so we automatically will sort the alignment issues as we go, we use AI to solve AI issues because we are the ones that are incentivized to align it with our values
@stewart-J in your 1st comment you said you don't believe we are.... Again, I think it depends on a good amount of luck or very important and careful planning. As this technology gets more powerful, it gets more unstable in its consequences. And it's accelerating most of the time, so the uncertainty becomes huge. It only takes a relatively small error to negate decades of work by triggering catastrophic chains of events. The more powerful it becomes, the harder this is to prevent. Even if alignment is likely, it's never a guarantee
Kristian is eloquent in his rebundling of old ideas. Another mouth piece of the WEF agenda 🥱 Lame. Hats off to you, Liv, for seeing through the veil and querying his true motivations as a burner (not burner)! 👏🏽
Regarding what you’ve said after the 15:00 mark, i remember myself ~20yo and being totally grabbed/infected by the capitalist metric, doing things like looking at paintings and only seeing them in terms of their price, or looking at people and appreciating them in terms of their $.
Another thing related to what you’re saying here is the fact that people ignore that the market has stopped _"finding the value of stuff"_ and started manipulating people’s minds (with the best means neuroscience offers and $$$ can buy) in order to _"manufacture the perceived value of stuff"._ Just look at people, from the richest to the poorest, we’re zombified, injected with memetic parasites, drones in the service of a system.
How in the hell did you get audio that sounds like it came from indoors?
Clever!
I didn't notice until I read your comment, and now I can't not notice it. Very good audio filters!
good point
Interesting. Kristian looks like he's on greenscreen, but Liv's hair is blowing in the wind
I have the solution to Moloch. If not, tell me what is wrong with this logic:
1. As long as we must compete against each other to survive, we are forced to sacrifice the long term common good for our short term advantage.
2. The sacrifice of long term common good will lead to catastrophic destruction or the competition to survive will lead to mutual destruction with high tech.
3. The only way to end the competition to survive is to become one global team and all work towards one shared goal.
4. The only goal we can all share voluntarily is one that benefits everyone equally
5. The only goal that benefits everyone equally is that of meeting EVERYONE'S fundamental needs (including emotional needs that if not met lead to pathologies)
6. The only way to meet everyone's fundamental needs without a competition to decide what conditions must be met or whether or not they have been met is by meeting EVERYONE'S needs UNCONDITIONALLY.
7. The only way to have everyone accept this goal voluntarily is by inspiring them to do so through education about fundamental emotional needs and persuasion.
8. Fundamental human needs are necessary to be understood because they are fundamental to our mental and physical health. Most people don't know all humans have the same fundamental emotional needs nor what they are. So most people, even intellegent and powerful are mostly wandering around blind to their needs and those of all other humans they live with and depend on. Therefore, raising awareness about them is the single most effective action we can take to defeat Moloch and create a better world.
9. Yes…Let’s Do this! & always read the small print,notice the little things & check the little devils in them details….& our common suffering is the key to the door to Forever Summer…give thanx 4 the comment section Tintersection ..
These ideas are part of the venus project along with ecological sustainability. Cybernetics applied to economic and social systems is something I'm interested in. Project Cybersyn is a case study that I can use for that.
Very optimistic and "nice" thoughts from you but I would consider this very naive as well given the fact that we all play this built-in social status game which is incompatible with your idea of " something that benefits everyone equally ".
The social status game we are all playing is based on the individuals position in the hierarchy meaning having more of whatever is considered valueable relative to everyone else. I might sound pessimistic or cynical but this is what I have observed from my own point of view.
@ it’s just a question of reprogramming..or recoding the data..water is naive that’s how it accumulates all that info..no one in their right mind would do that!
@@primordialstate Your reply isn't refuting any logic in my deduction
You simply don't believe it's possible to make everyone equally happy. That isn't what I said should be the goal. It isn't possible to have a world of equality for all but we can all work towards something that benefits all equally. My point is that only a goal that benefits everyone equally can be a goal shared by all. And that only if we all share a goal can we stop fighting against each other.
You can simply refuse to believe it's possible but that isn't useful nor practical. What is practical is finding a solution to move forward and solve the challenge we face whether we believe we will solve it or not, we don't have a choice but to try.
Human needs can be determined scientifically. What is a need is that which is indespensable for humans to be healthy. We can discover what a dog needs, we can discover what a rose needs, we can discover what a human needs to not develop pathologies.
A society that works towards no human developing pathologies is a society ever human can want to support.
Great talk! I just watched Idiocracy (the 2007 movie, not today's real-life imitation) and I see a two loopholes in reputation: 1) buy the reputation chain, Brondo supremacy achieved, and 2) given enough time everything eventually becomes its opposite, i.e. today's revolutionary values are tomorrow's dogmas (meaning an entity's reputation will eventually become a cynical shell, e.g. Orwell's Ministry of Truth)
"everything eventually becomes its opposite" I don't think this is some sort of rule. Given long enough, sure, most anything that can happen will happen, but Orwell's 'Ministry of Truth' was chosen for it's irony, and wouldn't work well in a society where people had more freedom!
Powerful statement releasing this on all hallows eve, Halloween, or whatever people call this night of the thin veil.
It’s a prayer to the coming season of scarcity.
45:22 - Y'all, we need each other. "Cooperation is the ultimate form of competition" - Will Durant
"Selfishness beats altruism within groups but altruistic groups beat selfish groups. All the rest is commentary"
I don't like how he ignores that collaboration within group is what defines us as human.
He talks as if life started in post agricultural society. When humans have evolved and lived most of our existance in less hierarchical structures.
Your statement is brief, but I tend to disagree, at least to a degree. Here's why : first of all, 'collaboration within group' is indeed a very human trait, but it is certainly not restricted only to humans within the scope of the living world. For example - just look at ants. (Or bees).
Now to your second point - it would be hard for me to rebuke your claim (or not) given I wasn't there for the vast span of time across which our species evolved, but I would have to assume that even in a pre-agricultural & civilizational era, there must have actually been very robust hierarchical structures in-place within any given tribe, and serious warfare over land & food supplies & such would break out occasionally. To perhaps get a very privileged & narrow glimpse of such a time in our distant ancestry, take a look a how a troup of chimpanzees or bonobos might behave, for example.
And here I sit remembering how I first found out about Liv. Not poker, not science not nothing other than Children of Bodom - Black Widow.
Some of these problems used to be resolved by religions, taboos, etc when each individual internalized common values and there was no need for centralized coordination
Some peeps (me being one such peep) are calling for a new religion...for this reason 👆
I don't think we've ever been better coordinated than we are right now. Religion is memetic psychosis that often leads people to do bad things to each other or disregard dangers.
The jiu-jitsu way you leveraged the zoom-out technique to pivot mass extinction events not as survivor bias, but as a catalyst for higher orders of complexity triggered me in a good way!
It first reminded me of Charlie Wilson's War - Zen master and the little boy (it’s on youtube, great monologue and maybe you're Gust, Moloch your distress, and the prevailing short-sighted wisdom Charlie.. but maybe not.. :0)
It then triggered me to ‘zoom out’ and think of ancient mysticism, particularly the alchemical process of transforming lead into gold. The hermetic 'vessel' represents a system under pressure. Within this vessel, duress generates heat, heat fosters pliability, and pliability enables recombination. This mirrors Darwin’s concept of environmental pressure selecting the best mutations, but just for that time.. because as we've learned.. even the 'best at that time' can lead to a planetary extinction like the Great Oxidation Event.
And perhaps, for human society, duress serves a similar function, driving us toward higher complexity? Yes! Agreed! Too much duress could lead to our demise! But too little fosters complacency. Doesn’t the best art come from duress?
This leaves me with an over-simplified framework just now: dissatisfaction (duress/tyranny/futility) generates heat (creativity), which enables recombination (new social paradigms). Ideally, this avoids demise in the process, such as a planet-level extinction.
On the other hand, collaboration often yields wide-spread satisfaction, which can lead to complacency and eventually creativity-stagnation; which could make us all sitting ducks for demise as well. Do you think we'd learn to protect ourselves from a life threatening asteroid if we were still happy sustainable hunter gatherers? Huge leap.. but just say'n! :0). Don't know, but this dichotomy: duress as a driver of progress versus a potential trigger for collapse, seems intrinsic to our human condition, maybe even our cognitive make-up?
The question then is how to navigate this tightrope while we still have the planetary resources to course-correct? Can we leverage dissatisfaction to spark innovation without succumbing to self-destruction?
I think reputation markets and global transparency offer potential safeguards, but these tools are still too vulnerable to exploitation.
That said, i do have some hope.. with increased planetary transparency of human activity, reputation-like markets do have a better chance.. as now we don’t just have Freedom of Speech.. we have something that never really existed before X and Lex and Rogan, and now You…. Freedom of Reach! Mainstream media historically owned Reach, and since mainstream media really just carried the water for the nation state there really was never the freedom of reach for our freedom speech like we have today.
So i think our call to action is to protect Freedom of Reach now just as passionately as we did freedom of Speech in the past! We need to fight censorship and cancellation like never before. I think that's the best defence against the terminal aspects of Moloch that is truly is in our control today; and the best chance for reputation-like markets, or just letting us all vote better with our wallet.
Just my initial thoughts-thanks again for the video! Really thought provoking!
I have another frame to view the Fermi paradox from. Civilizations based on unchecked growth are unsustainable and die off before they colonize galaxies. This would leave small sustainable civilizations throughout the universe that are hard to detect.
Interesting. And I wonder how hospitable or hostile these different colonies would be (ours included), upon being visited by another. §H!+ could fly in aaaaaaallllllll sorts of directions. (and at lightning speed).
51:04 love this zoom out point! Such a great thing to keep in mind at every turn!!
So glad i stumbled on this episode. Thank you both. I've been interested in this topic of reputation but specifically in the digital world. I would love to join the sub reddit if you make one.
Major Major: But suppose everybody on our side felt that way.
Yossarian: Then I’d certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn’t I?
Most important and beautiful theorem of physics says that, if energy is conserved and if you do the same experiment in different moments of time you will have the same results. Same if impulse is conserved if you do the same experiment in different places in space you will have same results. But that theorem come relatively late. On the other side is math and psychoanalysis. Axiom of choice says that if you have two different measures you can find one universal measure that covers both initial measures, in other words money always win in measuring things. And psychoanalysis says that we start our development in relation to one single total/totalitarian object. So totalitarian is possibly not rule of the universe but is very deep in our nature and culture. Learning supposes that we do different experiments...on the edge somewhere between repetition of what we know and unknown. And here we come to quality of education, totalitarianism is good in self reproduction as we know from communist experiment. Coordination is great point of view but we come to S. Wolfram's theory of automates and what we can't predict before the end of computation...with growing human population we are most likely to fail in inventing more and more complex coordinations...?...
One interviewer and shorter video is better even if we don't have a final answer. Thanks.
A chain reaction of caring about one's reputation started by a big financial player is a great way of conceptualizing how to start the change toward more constructive global coordination, or exactly the kind of thing that I've been working on lately under the umbrella of protopianism with Luke Macmichael. I'm definitely putting that into a book of protopian short sci-fi stories I'm writing right now.
The primary question of a reputation market is what we value and what the best way to get there is. This seems to be the fundamental question of civilization/government/coordination already. The problem is we are often mistaken, and fundamentally disagree, about the best way to achieve the outcomes that we value. Not sure how such a system would solve for these very difficult problems, rather than essentially recreating a virtual simulation of the situation/debate that already exists.
I don't think its just a problem of "information", but also a huge problem of "instant gratification", individual and collective tendency to do what "feels good now" even if it hurts us long term (like fossil fuels). Its almost an addiction
Excellent video, thank you
Yes, well enough about that, where did that guy get his shirt? It's gorgeous.
At the store, I'd have to assume.
Really great conversation
Is this in game footage of Final Fantasy 17? Beautiful graphics but the battle system seems a little slow.
Unfortunately I think this too would be gamed and corrupted. Sounds like a social credit thing
As long as we respect unjust hierarchies, this will be true.
We have to first reorient the whole view of hierarchy and how it can or can't be climbed.
A merit based system makes sense, but obviously that's the very thing that's been gamed for decades.
As long as we try to attach metrics to social status, this may be impossible to overcome
To be honest, the only hope I have is AGI. I dont think human beings will ever be able to do the right thing consistently, we have to get someone better to govern us. The risks are apocalyptical, but in my eyes we are going towards extinction either faster or slower. The only "new" road is to let someone else take the reigns.
Reputational markets is a terrible idea. It's basically a social credit score for corporations. He's essentially describing ESG but where anyone, not just a BlackRock, can determine the targets. This will be gamed by competitors. Muddy the information ecosystem; control the narrative by flooding the conversation with causal stories that shift outcome judgments and prompt value re-evaluations. Controlling the narrative will be the lifeblood of companies. We wind up in dystopia again.
Fair point, but waiting until there's a system that cant be gamed....might wait a longtime....probably past windows of opportunity to do some sensible good things. There's no attempt at adapting positively ahead of the $hit curve coming that doesn't require a leap of faith & sacrifice....that includes status quo - do nothing approaches. Active conscious engagement by as much of humanity as possible joining together to solve common problems is the only way. Or being back-classed down the evolutionary "civilisation" ladder.
But maybe we have to 2 steps back before 1 forward.... or the other way round if we're lucky. There's going to some musical chairs with political systems, borders & resources coming to a main street near you real soon. Best foot forward in good faith while eyes open to big picture & just trying to make your local community more resilient in a realistic way. No basket weaving hippies out of their heads licking the back of invasive Joe Rogens, or hiding in billionaire bunkers re creating molch worship for capitalism 2.0 post ashes self disabling "upgrade"'
Get your townhalls have some conversation with your local farmers, producers & start with your local economy & that's a WinWin, even the everything else has gone to $hit
@garrenosborne9623 this is basically right. The one escape clause might be AI if it works out ok. But I feel like the billionaires are just waiting until the robots are good enough and the rest of us will just be an annoyance.
@@garrenosborne9623 Neat. It kind of makes it sound like we're currently in the 'Cha' phase of doing the 'Cha-Cha-Cha' dance.
@@MattHabermehl What is the ultimate goal of A.I. seriously? And if your answer is 'to reach a singularity', please elaborate a little more than that.
@@rigelb9025 do you mean the goal of the people making the AI or the AI itself?
Super intéressant. Si seulement il y avait une traduction en français...
Voici un résumé en-gros : les multinationales vont pousser fort pour que la Crypto devienne monnaie courante, et que les plus pigmentés d'entre-nous fassent gaffe.
@@rigelb9025 Les "cryptos" ont tant de caractéristiques différentes , en quoi cela les arrangent ? surtout les monnaies déflationnistes qui ne poussent pas à la consommation ?
Just about to watch the latest video and you removed it 😢. I hope all's ok.
yeah apologies it wasn't meant to have dropped yet! coming out next week
Мы должны собрать больше сыра. Ибо Молох требует этого.Во славу сырного Молоха!!!С плесенью.
Moloch is immortal
No it’s a corrupted distorted hijacked version of the Celtic God Bel….it’s finite & in its final finale
@arthurmcgonnell1179 It'd be good if you're right
@@TennesseeJed DYOR ..Jim Fitzpatrick the Book of Conquests good place to start….
I would say it's more akin to reincarnation.
We can kill it, but it likely will emerge again elsewhere.
The ironic thing is Moloch kills itself, as capitalism is bound to do without us constantly giving it life-saving surgery
New Video - Lets GO!
Where to??
Are they accounting for the 13 families being in control of everything lol and why do people wake up and serve them everyday?
i think norman and moloch r the same thing 'norm' is the mechanical bureaucratic [backend] aspect of moloch if moloch is ultimatly ecolution then norm is the procedure/system/structure of evoulution tht makes the whole thing possible [the devil is in the detail]
"It is in your nature to destroy yourselves." - The Terminator
where we are now is the result of a sucumstances incentives and choises and all we do now is trying to escape the resuts of that
my gues is that sill only make it worse
the result of all that is ppl knowing the shit is about to hit the fan and adjusting accordingly
wich in turn accelerates this process of the hard reset
i'm not sure there is a way out of this other than a hard reset (collaps)
Its fusion, or bust
Complete bullocks, scores have completely failed and harmed companies and leave the system open for bad actors to manipulate scoring arbitrarily to hamstring competitors using bad press and other dubious tactics.
Scoring is stupid this isn’t kindergarten, common sense needs to reign supreme…
I think Kristian's take on competition in Nature is a bit outdated, given how common commensal and symbiotic relationships are in nature. Perhaps he means competition within a species, because competition between species is quite rare.
Capitalism is NOT "natural" selection.
Before 2008, a large number of people knew the markets were unstable and going to crash.
The exact date wasn't predictable, but it was clear it was coming.
And the "recovery" was anything but natural. Bailing out the big banks which benefited a small number of rich people, while letting many middle and lower class Americans lose their homes was not a natural selection process.
It was controlled and coordinated at the top, using very anti capitalistic means.
Natural selection would have been to let the failed banks fail.
This is just one example.
We all know about the FED and how markets are manipulated regularly.
My claim is not that we need more natural selection or capitalism, but to do away with competition based systems entirely.
Cooperation is necessary to our survival!
And if we have a global civilization, with this level of technological power, it must be global cooperation.
Not that this will be easy to make happen....
I see what you mean, but in this world in which we currently live, G¤D is a tax-exempt corporation, 'Darwinism' is social, natural disasters are engineered, and only a select few individuals who belong to a small group at the top of the pecking ladder will get to eat the lion's share. We call them the FED.
Not coordination, but military power
I was thinking that. The CNT/FAI and project cybersyn had coordination, but the nazis and the USA had military power. We should work towards a world, though that isn't "might make right"
@ Americans and Chinese are different people
Lot of echos in the Multipolar Win blog
46:48 isn’t this what BRICS is trying to do?
Ya but then there are competing values and that values are diffrent between people
Techbros pretending to understand anthropology always sound like they think Atlas Shrugged really happened...
😂
molock is the nature of humans and the nature of power
Molochiavellian, much?
@@rigelb9025 yes
it works
Lost me at "design". The very pretence that someone or a small group of people can know better about how society should work than the rest is by itself how we get into all kind of trouble.
That's doesn't really make sense.
This means you think the best system will just emerge organically without anyone having thought about it before.
Some people are just far smarter than others.
It's a huge distribution.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't work together and take input from all over. Quite the contrary.
But clever people need to think about the ideas we want to discuss before they can begin to build.
If this is done with humility, no one is acting like they have all the answers, and we can account for the majority of people's fundamental needs
@@MattAngiono Some people knows better than others is not the same as some people knows better than the rest collectively. That's where people get carried away. The best system doesn't emerge automatically without individual conscious choice, but emerge from individual making the best choice for themselves without imposing on others.
@powerpig99 like I said, I'm not in favor of any kind of top down approach, but I do think it's a statement of fact that a small number of people have the best system loosely in their minds already.
When it comes to any idea, there are always frontrunners that understand a concept before everyone else.
Working our way towards this better system isn't meant to simply be led by such people, but we should be paying attention to potential figures who have good ideas and trying to give the ideas themselves the momentum.
I don't think at the end that these people should care about the credit of "creating" the idea, as that just recreates the kind of hierarchy that we are trying to move beyond, and suggests they didn't have the proper understanding of the predicaments to begin with
@@MattAngiono There will always be better ideas for us to make better decisions individually, which leads to a better functioning society. Again it is not the same as a few people can know better than the rest combined therefore can claim or entrust to make decisions for society as a whole. Ironically, the more you take away individual rights away, the more it leads to bad societal outcome.
I find your stance funnily ironic, given your username.
Of course 2 winners in colonization and exploitation would advocate that just tweaking an unjust system will allow us to continue our savage game and feel better.
2:55 "same thing when it comes to climate change, right? Like in order to survive as a business, you need to be more profitable…" Quite uncoupled. But maybe he has something. You obviously think so, so → _Watch Later_
I usually enjoy your videos Liv, but an incredible waste of time this one is, interviewing a naive delusional dude who talks utter nonsense with so much authority.
I love you ;P....
Your video is very good, I want to see more beautiful videos
coordination is an autopoietic system and the AI is a quantum leap acceleration towards alignment
Or towards destruction of everything.
And you can't know the outcome.
Collapse is more common than persistence
@@MattAngiono I don't believe that, humans are negentropic
@@strewens I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.
I understand the term means negative entropy, but I'm not sure how you're applying here with that statement.
I think human beings are part of a complex system that is indeterminate.
In other words, we could increase complexity for many centuries, or we could wipe ourselves with a stupid mistake in technology, as is possible with nuclear
@@MattAngiono yes we are negentropic because we increase complexity and organisation and so we automatically will sort the alignment issues as we go, we use AI to solve AI issues because we are the ones that are incentivized to align it with our values
@stewart-J in your 1st comment you said you don't believe we are....
Again, I think it depends on a good amount of luck or very important and careful planning.
As this technology gets more powerful, it gets more unstable in its consequences.
And it's accelerating most of the time, so the uncertainty becomes huge.
It only takes a relatively small error to negate decades of work by triggering catastrophic chains of events.
The more powerful it becomes, the harder this is to prevent.
Even if alignment is likely, it's never a guarantee
Oh, you Sweeds and your X-risk ☺
Isn't he Norwegian?
You are arguing for the social credit system.
was thinking that. `We own you and you are happy`
I was interested in this video until I saw that you were at Burning Man. Bye.
Judgment much?
Don't try to describe burning man. It makes you look silly to people who haven't been.
I like to say "don't hate the playa..."
nonsense
Ur nonsense ya lil sweetie 🤣😘
Твой рот
Liv need more water slide vids
Kristian is eloquent in his rebundling of old ideas. Another mouth piece of the WEF agenda 🥱 Lame. Hats off to you, Liv, for seeing through the veil and querying his true motivations as a burner (not burner)! 👏🏽