Being physically implemented, all change has to be physically implemented.
But some change is the result of the system taking inputs, responding to them, reflecting on itself, and changing the way that it operates, often it quite radical ways.
Does anyone else find being an embedded / naturalistic agent disturbing?
Like, I could be injected with a chemical that would cause my cells to make new proteins, which could alter my brain.
It could change the algorithm that this body is running.
Which, from a computational theory of identity, is to say that you could inject me with a chemical that would delete ME, and replace me with someone else.
That's horrifying. It feels like one of the things that "shouldn't be allowed".
Today, I was contemplating becoming rich enough that I could be confident that I wouldn't be able to spend all of that money on X-risk related projects, and I could give a chunk to Give Directly, every year, or every month.
(This wouldn't be the important, world-saving, money. It would be what I have LEFT OVER from that, which I could give away to help people have better lives.)
Thinking about that, I started to feel a kind of happiness and optimism and...brightness, that I haven't felt since I was first getting involved in EA, back in 2015.
I'm increasingly hopeful that the combination of a shift to remote work + the breakdown of the legitimacy of the existing institutions, is a good thing, because power and initiative will accrue to states and cities as they provide notably better governance than their competitors.
It seems to me that moving the locus of power down to a more local level is a win for the world, because it can increase variance in governance.
Because of network effects, a handful of hubs can be disproportionately important to global well-being. Which means that creating highly productive urban centers with unusually good governance waaaay outweighs the cost of all the places that end up with worse governance.