The first em is used in a rather understandable way, automating household chores that are a matter of detailed preference. The second is interrogated, taking advantage of time dilation, which seems a possible but less reasonable use of the technology.
In this spirit of Robin's desire to see more wholehearted study of the future, let's compare two depictions from recent media of Earth society upon the cusp of interplanetary colonization.
In 1999, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (SMAC) depicted "factions" competing for resources on the newly-colonized planet. (I'm forgetting the back story, but I think they were on the same ship and only splintered into separate colonies during the journey.) These factions are *not* aligned with early 21st century nation states; rather they are split upon ideological lines. They're caricatures, but interesting caricatures, of environmentalism, corporatism, internationalism, fundamentalism, militarism, technocracy, etc.
In 2014, Sid Meier's Civilization: Beyond Earth (BE) was released with (IMO) much less interesting "Sponsors" [presumed to have paid for the interplanetary colonial vessels]. These are given certain in-game bonuses that align them to particular play styles. But on the level of "story" they are simple derivatives of existing 21st century nation states or slightly larger geographical aggregates. To wit, these comprise (a corporatized version of the) USA, China, India, Africa, France/Spain, Brazil, Australia, Russia.
My question for the audience is, which of these scenarios is more plausible for the relevant period in the future, any why?
I enjoyed SMAC much more, but the BE factions seem more realistic: I doubt geography will be subsumed by ideology in a few hundred years. Also the particular geographic aggregates seem realistic. It also implies an "African Renaissance" period that results in a more politically unified African continent, a scenario that I think must be common in sci-fi and has a certain plausibility.
On the other hand, it's also plausible that within-state (and supra-state-level) power struggles between ideologues of different stripes dominate out political discourse much more today (relative to inter-state power struggles) than was the case 200 years ago. And on a broader historical level, examples like waves of religious conversion and democratization suggest that ideology can trump nationalism on long horizons. So perhaps SMAC's factions are not ridiculous. And they are so much more fun.
(Apologies if this has come up before. In fact, I'm pretty confident it's been discussed to death in some thread on Less Wrong, but I don't know where and I'm particular curious about Robin's take.)
Hanson, you need to talk more about: (1) inventor rights to their invention separate and apart from employer rights (akin to Japanese Article 35 and the blue laser litigation, and akin to employee 'right to work' laws here in the USA regarding covenants not to compete, as AlexT has written about), and, (2) why proposed bills to give innocent infringers of patent works "shop rights", akin to what you discussed with AlexT last year, have failed before Congress, and, (3) whether you think, long term, the supply of innovation is fixed (the current consensus) or variable, that is, would people respond to incentives and invent more, if we strengthen the patent system, or pretty much is it, as historically seems to be the rule, that inventors invent for the love of it, and not for the money (as per nearly every Nobelist, but pace people like Tom Edison).
Can you provide some examples of hyped health pills from the past? I can't think of a single one. What do you know that David Sinclair, Lenny Guarante, Brian Kennedy, Linda Partridge and Cynthia Kenyon don't?
Whether it is physically possible to travel to other stars is less important than whether our social system evolves enough to let us. Call it feudalism like David Brin, call it Moloch like Scott Alexander, but maybe civilizations made of dumb self-interested beings never overcome it.
Interestingly, my grandson's tricycle did not come with the following warning: "The Department of Transportation has not evaluated claims made for this product. This vehicle is not intended to carry, convey, or transport any child."
Various paths to life extension (or not) seem replete w/ tradeoffs at the individual, family, & societal levels. There is a spectrum of degrees and approaches. There's great uncertainty as to means and outcomes, costs & benefits of very different kinds, & all manner of wild (and not-so-wild) cards which potentially bear on the matter. It seems complex. Does anyone have pointers to informed, balanced treatments of this topic? Thanks.
Over long periods of time there is certainly drift, upwards, which only adds to the probability of gains. As far as I'm aware a mean reverting random walk model is the standard model of stock markets, it differs from normal random walk because increasing steps away from the average meet more and more resistance, as opposed to the normal random walk model where a step forward and a step backward always have equal probability. I suppose you could factor in another term that models a treshold value beyond which the stock market collapses (rats abandoning the ship after a very bad time or the bursting of a bubble after a "too good" time), I don't know if that's generally done or not. In any case the only thing about the model that's important to blogospheroid's question is the idea that, within limits, the stock markets bounces back to certain values so overall gains are not less likely than losses of the same absolute size, just like temperature or precipitation measurements in meteorology.
Yes, that's certainly part of it and a reason why vitamins don't really fit the common idea of a drug even though that if you have to conjure up some legal definition they might technically fall under it.
Maybe a geographic lock as it's a UK show?
Alas I can't get it to play on my mac.
An interesting example of ems in popular culture in the latest Black Mirror. http://www.channel4.com/pro...
The first em is used in a rather understandable way, automating household chores that are a matter of detailed preference. The second is interrogated, taking advantage of time dilation, which seems a possible but less reasonable use of the technology.
This is a quirk of using arithmetic rates of return. If you measure returns logarithmically, then you won't notice this.
http://www.dcfnerds.com/94/...
In this spirit of Robin's desire to see more wholehearted study of the future, let's compare two depictions from recent media of Earth society upon the cusp of interplanetary colonization.
In 1999, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (SMAC) depicted "factions" competing for resources on the newly-colonized planet. (I'm forgetting the back story, but I think they were on the same ship and only splintered into separate colonies during the journey.) These factions are *not* aligned with early 21st century nation states; rather they are split upon ideological lines. They're caricatures, but interesting caricatures, of environmentalism, corporatism, internationalism, fundamentalism, militarism, technocracy, etc.
In 2014, Sid Meier's Civilization: Beyond Earth (BE) was released with (IMO) much less interesting "Sponsors" [presumed to have paid for the interplanetary colonial vessels]. These are given certain in-game bonuses that align them to particular play styles. But on the level of "story" they are simple derivatives of existing 21st century nation states or slightly larger geographical aggregates. To wit, these comprise (a corporatized version of the) USA, China, India, Africa, France/Spain, Brazil, Australia, Russia.
My question for the audience is, which of these scenarios is more plausible for the relevant period in the future, any why?
I enjoyed SMAC much more, but the BE factions seem more realistic: I doubt geography will be subsumed by ideology in a few hundred years. Also the particular geographic aggregates seem realistic. It also implies an "African Renaissance" period that results in a more politically unified African continent, a scenario that I think must be common in sci-fi and has a certain plausibility.
On the other hand, it's also plausible that within-state (and supra-state-level) power struggles between ideologues of different stripes dominate out political discourse much more today (relative to inter-state power struggles) than was the case 200 years ago. And on a broader historical level, examples like waves of religious conversion and democratization suggest that ideology can trump nationalism on long horizons. So perhaps SMAC's factions are not ridiculous. And they are so much more fun.
(Apologies if this has come up before. In fact, I'm pretty confident it's been discussed to death in some thread on Less Wrong, but I don't know where and I'm particular curious about Robin's take.)
Hanson, you need to talk more about: (1) inventor rights to their invention separate and apart from employer rights (akin to Japanese Article 35 and the blue laser litigation, and akin to employee 'right to work' laws here in the USA regarding covenants not to compete, as AlexT has written about), and, (2) why proposed bills to give innocent infringers of patent works "shop rights", akin to what you discussed with AlexT last year, have failed before Congress, and, (3) whether you think, long term, the supply of innovation is fixed (the current consensus) or variable, that is, would people respond to incentives and invent more, if we strengthen the patent system, or pretty much is it, as historically seems to be the rule, that inventors invent for the love of it, and not for the money (as per nearly every Nobelist, but pace people like Tom Edison).
What longevity pills?
Can you provide some examples of hyped health pills from the past? I can't think of a single one. What do you know that David Sinclair, Lenny Guarante, Brian Kennedy, Linda Partridge and Cynthia Kenyon don't?
Risk aversion is not the same thing as loss-aversion.
Given the long track record of overhyped medical claims, I'm skeptical of the latest pills, until shown otherwise.
Whether it is physically possible to travel to other stars is less important than whether our social system evolves enough to let us. Call it feudalism like David Brin, call it Moloch like Scott Alexander, but maybe civilizations made of dumb self-interested beings never overcome it.
So this post struck me as flawed:
http://www.effective-altrui...
Interestingly, my grandson's tricycle did not come with the following warning: "The Department of Transportation has not evaluated claims made for this product. This vehicle is not intended to carry, convey, or transport any child."
Various paths to life extension (or not) seem replete w/ tradeoffs at the individual, family, & societal levels. There is a spectrum of degrees and approaches. There's great uncertainty as to means and outcomes, costs & benefits of very different kinds, & all manner of wild (and not-so-wild) cards which potentially bear on the matter. It seems complex. Does anyone have pointers to informed, balanced treatments of this topic? Thanks.
Over long periods of time there is certainly drift, upwards, which only adds to the probability of gains. As far as I'm aware a mean reverting random walk model is the standard model of stock markets, it differs from normal random walk because increasing steps away from the average meet more and more resistance, as opposed to the normal random walk model where a step forward and a step backward always have equal probability. I suppose you could factor in another term that models a treshold value beyond which the stock market collapses (rats abandoning the ship after a very bad time or the bursting of a bubble after a "too good" time), I don't know if that's generally done or not. In any case the only thing about the model that's important to blogospheroid's question is the idea that, within limits, the stock markets bounces back to certain values so overall gains are not less likely than losses of the same absolute size, just like temperature or precipitation measurements in meteorology.
Yes, that's certainly part of it and a reason why vitamins don't really fit the common idea of a drug even though that if you have to conjure up some legal definition they might technically fall under it.
It is a controversial statement that a stock market is mean-reverting. It is closer to a geometric random walk with drift.