I shocked @tomough with this statistic about the UK
The mean average GDP per employed adult in the UK is about $107,000 which is about £85k
That means that without the government taking away your money in the form of taxes and duties, the average brit would be on $107k (£85k).
A couple with average jobs would have $214k. A couple with above average jobs might have $400k/yr. This is totally normal in America
As it currently stands, the average post-tax take is £27k.
The government is stealing about 67% of the value of your labor.
Edit: some people have pointed out that a portion of that $107k should go to capital depreciation. But I don't think it's much because the UK mostly doesn't have capital intensive industry. All the steel works and coal mines are closed. It's just people sitting in offices.
Where is all that money going?
It's going to pay for your replacements. Illegal immigrants in luxury hotels. £30k/week - £1.5M/yr - for juvenile delinquent care homes. Hundreds of billions of pounds for permanently unemployed people and pensioners. Free NHS appointments for basically any foreigner who shows up. An army of DEI staff. Salaries for the woke BBC to feed you propaganda.
The British state is almost a perfect parasite. It provides almost no positive value. It doesn't defend the country or fight crime.
All it does is steal 2/3rd of your income and give it out to your enemies and various assorted freeloaders.
I should also add that there's still a solid 15-20% of this that's a bit hard for me to account for. Government spending is about 45% of GDP, capital depreciation is about 5% but that doesn't get us to 67%.
Imagine if the British state was pared down to a more reasonable 7.5% of GDP, and people had something like double or triple their current salaries, along with a bonfire of Nimbyism to allow new housing, infra, parks and offices to be built. I bet the fertility rate would go up and we wouldn't need mass immigration. Then social trust would increase again...
What we need is a Department of Government Efficiency (UK Edition) to slash the size of the state down to a reasonable level and allow people to build.
Anyway, maybe someone can go dig into the national accounts and find that missing 15%:
Something that I think is underappreciated that I learned from listening to the recent @robinhanson podcast is that a factory can pay for itself in about 3 months. I.e. a new factory that makes stuff will cost about the same as 3 months of its production can pay for.
Therefore if you could make everything needed to run the economy in a factory, the economy could double every 3 months. The main component of our economy that cannot be made in a factory is people, or rather the intelligence in the human brain. Without intelligence your factory cannot perfectly reproduce itself because it cannot make new factory workers, managers, engineers, etc.
If the economy doubles every 3 months from 2030 to 2040, it will grow by a factor of 10¹², which is vastly more than all the economic growth since the dawn of history.
I genuinely believe that this is going to start to happen within 15 years. AI is very close to being able to replace all humans needed to run a factory. And you can make new AI chips in a chip fab, which is really a type of factory.
Another way to look at this is the ratio between the physical mass of a factory and the mass per month of products.
Tesla's Berlin Gigafactory makes 375,000 cars per year and has a footprint of 3km²
Each car has an area of 10m²
As a crude approximation we can imagine stacking cars on the footprint of the factory as a proxy for how quickly it could physically reproduce itself, and 375,000 * 10m² is slightly larger than 3km², so it takes something like 9 months to produce the same physical area of material.
I estimate the mass of the gigafactory to be something like 300,000 tons. Given an average Tesla mass of 4561 pounds, that's about 4 months worth of production.
In financial terms, Giga Berlin cost €4 billion. A Tesla costs around €50,000 on average. So 3 months worth of Teslas is roughly equal to the cost of the gigafactory
So @robinhanson's 3 month self-reproduction time for factories does check out
Another thing that is rather mind-blowing is that if the economy grows by a factor of 10^12 in energy consumption that doesn't even get us to the physical limits of our solar system.
Current energy use is 2 × 10¹³ W
An increase by a factor of 1 trillion gets us to 2 × 10²⁵ W
That is about 1/20th of the power output of The Sun!
When we try to explain or predict the world around us, it's worth trying to explain something where we already know the answer.
So, without looking it up, maybe have a think about why we have sex. I mean biologically, why does sex exist at all as opposed to everyone being female and just giving birth to a clone of herself?
Answers in the comments please!
Note: people just answering "because variability/variance/mutation" are wrong.
You can make random changes to offspring without having sex. In fact, that is how the millions of asexual species evolve.
Yes, that's right, there are millions of species that are asexual and they do evolve, therefore they do have variation/mutation without sex. Oops!
Another thing to think about is given that there is sex, why are there two sexes rather than one?
Yes, that's right. Why two?
Having half the population unable to be pregnant seems insanely inefficient. Why not have everyone be female, but allow two eggs to combine into an embryo?
I think we all got off in the wrong direction on AI risk from ~2004
I really need to write a longform article about it
Briefly, the @ESYudkowsky|2004 take on AI risk was that AI would kill us all for a bunch of technical reasons:
- human values are complex relative to math and programming languages, so AI that came from math/programming/optimization wouldn't understand them when it was weak and malleable, and so it would kill is all by default pretty much irrespective of the details of how it worked because optimizing the universe for a non-human goal kills off humans almost every time
- self-optimization itself might be hard and risky because how do you make a system that's reflectively self-consistent. Construction of subagents and successor agents is logically the same as self-modification.
- a sufficiently advanced AI might end up self-basilisk-ing or catching a virus hiding in the malign universal prior or otherwise doing something weird and insane and without corrigibility we'd have no way to stop it. And it turns out that corrigibility is very unnatural.
Later, we added a bunch of new technical risks related to Neural Network AI as opposed to generic problems that don't care about implementation details.
Problems like mesa-optimizers, gradient hacking, etc.
1. According to leftist morality, the world is mostly arranged with victims/oppressed and perpetrators/oppressors. Oppressors essentially steal labor or freedom or land from victims.
2. In the past the victim/oppressor split was pretty clean. Oppressors were the upper classes, victims were peasants/slaves. This victim/oppressor split made sense because in the past economic growth was low and so most labor had to be spent just to keep everyone fed, so there were very few people who had the time to do anything other than agriculture and so on, and so the few who had time/money/status were able to pretty effectively rig the system.
3. The point of morality is to allow victims/oppressed and their allies to unite against oppressors. Everything about leftist morality boils down to this: you can change the theme but the core idea is always this.
4. You have to punish people who don't support the victim against the oppressor, and if you do you'll be rewarded by other leftists. This works mostly because of signalling games: supporting a victim signals strength, supporting an oppressor signals weakness.
5. There's also probably an element of group selection at work: groups where people didn't rise up against oppressors may have died out because these oppressors can basically steal all the group's resources. This "group selection for anti-oppressor altruistic punishment" feels like "being a good person" from the inside. It's not individually rational behavior because you take some nonzero personal risk by criticizing an oppressor and it's unlikely to be the optimal thing for your individual genes.
6. Originally the purpose of leftist morality was throwing off inefficient, negative sum oppressors (think about a coalition of a few strong men who run a tribe for their own benefit, taking food and mates from others, to the detriment of the common good). But the instinct to smash all hierarchy and dethrone all oppressors is an adaptive human behavior, not a rational goal. Think about the difference between a person planning a business (rational goalseeking behavior) and a beaver building a dam (innate, adaptive behavior).
Leftist morality in modernity
Leftist morality (oppressor/oppressed) was probably adaptive for some period of time because in the past there was a clean split between the ruling class and the peasant class, and the ruling class usually didn't have anything useful to do with excess resources, so the phenomenon mainly served as a limiting factor on wasteful oppression.
There are a few famous examples like The Protestant Reformation and The French Revolution.
But when you apply the oppressor/oppressed lens to the modern world it often misfires in a specific way.
We identify "the oppressed" by looking for groups who are either the subject of some kind of system of oppression (apartheid is an example, or institutionalized homophobia), or by the fact that they're not doing well in life (e.g. poor black communities, the homeless, etc).
In the past - at least the distant past when communities were small - there wasn't much in the way of biological and economic diversity, so most examples of inequality were the result of someone cheating. Hence you could identify an inequality of process by looking at outcomes. "The peasants are poor because the greedy lord takes all of their food".
Nowadays the environment is much more diverse. "Black people are poor because they're less industrious and less intelligent on average". It's really the case that different groups of people and different systems for organizing people lead to vastly different outcomes.
But our innate sense of social justice hasn't been updated. In fact the mechanisms for virtue signaling and altruistic punishment just got stronger because they scale in power as the population gets larger (and social media hasn't helped!).
The poor oppressed black hoodlum is a moral superstimulus in the same way that a beer bottle is a sexual superstimulus for beetles. That sense of social justice used to be functional - it's there to act as a limiter on greedy/negative sum oppressor systems like feudal lords who extract too much from the peasants or tribal chiefs who get too big for their boots.
Leftist Morality versus Neoliberal Morality
What has happened in practice when people tried to run a modern society on the basis of this leftist morality is that anyone successful is identified as an oppressor and attacked, which results in a society of bitter unsuccessful, unproductive losers and that inevitably collapses into something else.
Remember, leftist morality (oppressor/oppressed) is an adaptation that humans have, not a rational plan. It's the beaver building dams out of habit, not the engineer building dams from first principles.
People who live in the world of oppressor/oppressed leftist morality don't want a solution, they want to be mad - at an oppressor. We've seen numerous instances of this such as climate change and geoengineering, environmentalists storming Tesla factories, etc.
The Neoliberal/economics/utility function foundation for axiology sees things differently: there are merely agents with something like goals, and those agents can cooperate (or not sometimes!) to achieve those goals. Economics tries to systematize cooperation over practical matters, but there's a missing piece of theory on cooperation over sociopolitical matters ("Anglo-American Earth is missing a socioaxiologocal revolution").
Nevertheless it's useful to contrast leftist morality against something like neoliberal economics morality which just aims to grow the pie.
Would you prefer to live in a leftist morality world where everyone is constantly fighting against each other with accusations of oppression, or would you rather live in a neoliberal morality world where people just work together to grow the pie? Well, given that choice any sane person would choose the latter.
The main reason I'm against an AI pause is that I am pretty certain we wouldn't do anything useful with more time.
In fact I'm pretty confident we'd just make things worse because it would give dumber and worse people more time to wiggle their way into the space.
Kurzweil definitively predicted The Singularity in 1999
Yudkowsky solved AI alignment in 2004
Since 2004 we haven't done anything useful on alignment.
If I could, I would absolutely send GPT-4 and the modern chip fabs back in time to 2005. Maybe we could do The Singularity before wokeness really took off and save everyone a lot of hassle.
I wrote a paper on CEV in 2009 and it was rejected for publication because it was seen as "too weird"
People will absolutely not do the things that are needed to prepare for ASC until it's urgent
PauseAI are dumb people who are (understandably) scared by the prospect of doom, but they are absolutely not helping
They are about as helpful for AI risk as extinction rebellion is for climate change, which is to say not at all.
The more time we pause the more dumb people will enter the arena and start making a mess of things.
It would have been better if we'd smoothly transitioned from Yudkowsky's ink on CEV drying to GPT-4, and then someone started a project to build the friendly AI immediately.
Crypto doesn't have a usecase, so why is it going up?
Numba Go Up is the usecase
(at least for now)
Gold bullion doesn't have a usecase, why is gold bullion up 10,000% since 1924?
Numba Go Up is the usecase for gold bullion. That's literally what it's for. It's a thing you can buy at time T1 and then later at time T2 it is worth more money. And this can continue ad infinitum because the number of dollars in circulation increases exponentially forever.
The fundamental truth of cryptoassets is that a thing that can be bought and sold permissionlessly and globally in exchange for dollars or other fiat money is an incredible invention. It doesn't actually need to do anything other than be a thing you can buy and sell for dollars/fiat, be electronic and permissionless and divisible.
We actually managed to un-invent this thing in 1933 when FDR made gold illegal (for the first time in history, I believe!).
Every cryptoasset since Bitcoin was invented in 2009 just exists as a "me too!" version of Bitcoin - something you can buy or sell in exchange for fiat.
All the "crypto usecases" that people have talked about are just a sort of story that we tell people to get them to buy into a permissionless store of value, because many people would find it weird that that one usecase is worth 10 trillion dollars and they actually wouldn't buy.