In many important areas of life like medicine, law, counseling, education, journalism, charity, governance, etc. we rely on giving great discretion to prestigious professionals, who tell us we can trust them due their professional ethics, internal professional review, and deep devotion to these sacred causes. No need for incentives, transparency, outcome tracking, or legal liability, really; you can just trust them. We usually pay extra for this prestige, validated by prestigious schools.
Slight correction, manifold does allow people to buy mana with money, so not so much on the second criterion.
Larger correction: In either case, one can always, without too many complications, track the amount of credit that has been earned inside of the system, to distinguish the authentic prediction fanatics from outside money.
There is a considerable literature in cultural anthropology on "spheres of exchange" that seems relevant here. The classic article is Paul Bohannan's "Some principles of exchange among the Tiv." The Tiv (Nigeria) had three ranked spheres of exchange: subsistence goods (food, household items), prestige goods (metal bars, cattle, slaves, fine cloth), and Tiv people (especially marriageable women). Gift exchanges ("conveyances") within each sphere were standard and morally acceptable. Exchanges between spheres ("conversions") sometimes happened, but were stigmatized, and meant a loss of status for the person giving the higher ranked good. Also relevant: Palestinians and Israelis were LESS likely to agree that hypothetical concessions to the other side were acceptable when money was added to the offer, but more likely to agree to a hypothetical bargain in which each side made symbolic concessions on their sacred values (Atran et al, "Sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict")
As this is merely a thought experiment you could see the bigger picture here. Profane stuff could be "sacred" as well if it is produced in an ethical and/or environmental friendly way.
OK, then the employees and vendors spend the sacred money on profane stuff (food, alcohol, clothing, USB cables...), and the vendors of those things in turn use it to pay their own suppliers, etc.
Scared money gets dispersed thru the entire economy and mixed with ordinary money. Does everyone's bank account have two totals, for sacred and profane money? Even tho they function identically when making purchases?
The idea would be that it *IS* valid spending of sacred money to pay employees and vendors, as their services are in fact contributing to the sacred outcomes.
I think the separation of domains might actually be most of sacredness, if not all of it. Even something as mundane as the shopkeeper's space behind the counter, for instance, has a magical charge to it for me, for I have never been in one, I know not what hides under the bench, and I am not allowed to, and I shouldn't be.
Relatedly, one of the most substantial things you raised about AGI Sacredness is that alignment strategists often think that AGI wont contain internal conflict, but that actually turns out to be entirely a question of inside and outside, what alignment strategists actually believe is that the conflict will be internal, like the conflict of the prediction markets of a futarchy, just as conflict rages in a defense council or a parliament, the conflict will often not be perceptible to us on the outside, we'll only see its resolutions.
(Personally, I think alignment eventually requires bringing some part of each human inside of the highest-level decisionmaking processes of the civic mechanism, requires exposing the conflicts to them, it will no longer be much of a sacred magisterium at that point, but enfranchisement will only happen if the thing is designed to make it happen.)
People have instincts that make them reluctant to talk openly about sacred nature of sacred things. Because talking about it implies that it's "merely" a social convention which implies that it's open to discussion. And sacred objects certainly aren't up for discussion.
I suspect (and hope) this proposal is intended to make a point about our hypocrisy and irrationality, and not seriously. Because if it's serious, it's (forgive me) stupid. I have tremendous respect for your intellect, Robin, but this idea is not a winner.
How would producers of scared goods and services pay their employees and vendors? If you're making inspirational posters, how do you buy ink or pay the guy who repairs your printing press?
Alternatively, we need to have different accounts for directing the group towards something external, away from ourselves and towards ourselves with a focus on our needs. These sorts of money need to be inconvertible and mutually inhibitory. To get a lot of one type of money would need to limit how much of the others were can hold onto.
To jump on the blockchain bandwagon here, could this be achieved via smart contracts - individual coins/tokens can be marked to only be spent for "sacred" causes enforced by the smart contract with no possibilty to change this at a later point in time by any entity or party?
Wouldn't play-money in prediction markets be an example of a sacred money? And isn't it quite well done?
To a large degree, it prevents prediction markets from becoming assassination markets, and keeps them somewhat isolated to a strange group of people who are simply religiously obsessed with the truth for its own sake rather than whatever money wanders in from the outside world. Perhaps sometimes a group will want to buy an outcome every now and then, but they have to buy it from the sacred caste, so it's somewhat difficult, I'd expect it to be policeable.
Slight correction, manifold does allow people to buy mana with money, so not so much on the second criterion.
Larger correction: In either case, one can always, without too many complications, track the amount of credit that has been earned inside of the system, to distinguish the authentic prediction fanatics from outside money.
Storable Votes
It sounds a bit like charity vouchers - e.g.: https://charityvouchers.org/
There is a considerable literature in cultural anthropology on "spheres of exchange" that seems relevant here. The classic article is Paul Bohannan's "Some principles of exchange among the Tiv." The Tiv (Nigeria) had three ranked spheres of exchange: subsistence goods (food, household items), prestige goods (metal bars, cattle, slaves, fine cloth), and Tiv people (especially marriageable women). Gift exchanges ("conveyances") within each sphere were standard and morally acceptable. Exchanges between spheres ("conversions") sometimes happened, but were stigmatized, and meant a loss of status for the person giving the higher ranked good. Also relevant: Palestinians and Israelis were LESS likely to agree that hypothetical concessions to the other side were acceptable when money was added to the offer, but more likely to agree to a hypothetical bargain in which each side made symbolic concessions on their sacred values (Atran et al, "Sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict")
The SMBC comic I think Dave is referring to is https://www.smbc-comics.com...
As this is merely a thought experiment you could see the bigger picture here. Profane stuff could be "sacred" as well if it is produced in an ethical and/or environmental friendly way.
OK, then the employees and vendors spend the sacred money on profane stuff (food, alcohol, clothing, USB cables...), and the vendors of those things in turn use it to pay their own suppliers, etc.
Scared money gets dispersed thru the entire economy and mixed with ordinary money. Does everyone's bank account have two totals, for sacred and profane money? Even tho they function identically when making purchases?
How is it different from ordinary money?
The idea would be that it *IS* valid spending of sacred money to pay employees and vendors, as their services are in fact contributing to the sacred outcomes.
I think the separation of domains might actually be most of sacredness, if not all of it. Even something as mundane as the shopkeeper's space behind the counter, for instance, has a magical charge to it for me, for I have never been in one, I know not what hides under the bench, and I am not allowed to, and I shouldn't be.
Relatedly, one of the most substantial things you raised about AGI Sacredness is that alignment strategists often think that AGI wont contain internal conflict, but that actually turns out to be entirely a question of inside and outside, what alignment strategists actually believe is that the conflict will be internal, like the conflict of the prediction markets of a futarchy, just as conflict rages in a defense council or a parliament, the conflict will often not be perceptible to us on the outside, we'll only see its resolutions.
(Personally, I think alignment eventually requires bringing some part of each human inside of the highest-level decisionmaking processes of the civic mechanism, requires exposing the conflicts to them, it will no longer be much of a sacred magisterium at that point, but enfranchisement will only happen if the thing is designed to make it happen.)
This wouldn't work.
People have instincts that make them reluctant to talk openly about sacred nature of sacred things. Because talking about it implies that it's "merely" a social convention which implies that it's open to discussion. And sacred objects certainly aren't up for discussion.
I suspect (and hope) this proposal is intended to make a point about our hypocrisy and irrationality, and not seriously. Because if it's serious, it's (forgive me) stupid. I have tremendous respect for your intellect, Robin, but this idea is not a winner.
How would producers of scared goods and services pay their employees and vendors? If you're making inspirational posters, how do you buy ink or pay the guy who repairs your printing press?
I'm with the SMBC comic.
Alternatively, we need to have different accounts for directing the group towards something external, away from ourselves and towards ourselves with a focus on our needs. These sorts of money need to be inconvertible and mutually inhibitory. To get a lot of one type of money would need to limit how much of the others were can hold onto.
To jump on the blockchain bandwagon here, could this be achieved via smart contracts - individual coins/tokens can be marked to only be spent for "sacred" causes enforced by the smart contract with no possibilty to change this at a later point in time by any entity or party?
Many groups and organizations have distinguished different "colors" of money. I'm suggesting a particular sort.
Wouldn't play-money in prediction markets be an example of a sacred money? And isn't it quite well done?
To a large degree, it prevents prediction markets from becoming assassination markets, and keeps them somewhat isolated to a strange group of people who are simply religiously obsessed with the truth for its own sake rather than whatever money wanders in from the outside world. Perhaps sometimes a group will want to buy an outcome every now and then, but they have to buy it from the sacred caste, so it's somewhat difficult, I'd expect it to be policeable.
In medicine, we already have sacred money. It's called "health insurance."