A few (3.6) years ago I wrote about the inequality over time induced by the big transitions, such as from primates to foragers to farmers to industry: Advantages do accrue to early adopters of new growth modes, but these gains seem to have gotten smaller with each new [transition]. … 1. The number of generations per growth doubling time has decreased. … 2. … As we get better at sharing info in other ways, the first insight-holders displace others less. 3. Independent competitors can more easily displace each another than interdependent ones.
I agree with this analysis, except with the underlying assumption that "ems" will be autonomous agents in the way humans are today, with continuity and lifespans.
If we imagine ems are conscious, and we hold any non-insane view of consciousness, we associate that consciousness with a computational process. A "clan" would be a function or piece of software. That function will be needed within more or less larger computations over time. Function instantiations would be created, run, and cleansed from memory on-the-fly. Nobody is going to pay to maintain a running process that isn't needed. If the running process itself wants to, it will be outcompeted by processes that don't.
So the unit of identity (the code or clan) would not have a 1-to-1 correspondence with the unit of consciousness (one invocation of that code), which will come and go very rapidly at diverse places with little or no continuity of consciousness.
We can also suppose that the complexity of computational processes will have a power-law distribution, with the larger processes comprised of smaller processes. There will be no preferred level of complexity that is more person-like than another.
Questions about how many ems there are in that environment are therefore nonsense. We don't have any meaningful concept of em identity - neither how to count multiple simultaneous instantiations of the same em, nor how to count ems in a hierarchical structure of ems - to use to take our census.
The one big thing to worry about is whether it is possible to ensure that conscious systems can compete with non-conscious processes. The pressure against allocating resources to maintaining consciousness may resemble the pressure today against allocating resources to nature preserves.
>if a corporation becomes “too big to fail”, then it has unlimited ability to siphon off unlimited profits from the rest of the economy.
Bankruptcy law is by no stretch a product of the market. Peter Gerdes's post drives home the point that from a "free market" perspective, bankruptcy law creates "inefficiencies."
As to corporations too big to fail: let's have a "free market" solution. End the limited liability of corporate investors! (Put the stockholders' personal wealth up for grabs, in proportion to their stock ownership.) Well, it's a "free market" solution, isn't it? What makes the insulation of stockholders exempt from the strictures of the free marketeers?
>That is, other things being equal, it is better to own stocks in two companies than to own stock in a merger of the two. If you own stock in the merger of the two the poor performance of one component has unlimited ability to drain money from the profits of the other while if you own the stocks in each company then your profits from the first are protected by bankruptcy from the losses of the second.
If I'm split into a million instances of myself, I expect/hope those instances to be perfectly altruistic. But being able to rely on myself so heavily means that there's a temptation to not rely at all on others. (Specialization of labor means this will probably be a terrible decision, but I predict the EMish will be clans that attempt to be self-sufficient rather than trading with other clans.
The floor on a firm's total value provided by bancruptcy provides a substantial pressure to keep businesses distinct (unmerged) unless there are economies of scale to be achieved by merging that overcome this effect.
That is, other things being equal, it is better to own stocks in two companies than to own stock in a merger of the two. If you own stock in the merger of the two the poor performance of one component has unlimited ability to drain money from the profits of the other while if you own the stocks in each company then your profits from the first are protected by bankruptcy from the losses of the second.
For example, I’d expect each occupation to be dominated by a few clans in the same way each product category is now dominated by a few firms.So instead of the way people today complain about how much they miss "mom and pop" stores were all figuratively killed off by a few large firms who outcompeted them for customers, people in the future will complain about how much they miss their friends and family members who were literally killed off by a few large em clans who outcompeted them for the resources to live on? Or at least, they'll complain until they're dead too?
Or is it more likely that pretty much everyone will still be alive, it's just that the "more successful" of them will be able to afford millions of copies of themselves whereas others will only be able to afford a few dozen?
And the “clan” of copies of the same original human would make sense as a unit of reputation and governance.This could also serve to drive a new form of altruism, where countless people identify with each other far more strongly than current people do. This could increase empathy and therefore solidarity.
I agree with this analysis, except with the underlying assumption that "ems" will be autonomous agents in the way humans are today, with continuity and lifespans.
If we imagine ems are conscious, and we hold any non-insane view of consciousness, we associate that consciousness with a computational process. A "clan" would be a function or piece of software. That function will be needed within more or less larger computations over time. Function instantiations would be created, run, and cleansed from memory on-the-fly. Nobody is going to pay to maintain a running process that isn't needed. If the running process itself wants to, it will be outcompeted by processes that don't.
So the unit of identity (the code or clan) would not have a 1-to-1 correspondence with the unit of consciousness (one invocation of that code), which will come and go very rapidly at diverse places with little or no continuity of consciousness.
We can also suppose that the complexity of computational processes will have a power-law distribution, with the larger processes comprised of smaller processes. There will be no preferred level of complexity that is more person-like than another.
Questions about how many ems there are in that environment are therefore nonsense. We don't have any meaningful concept of em identity - neither how to count multiple simultaneous instantiations of the same em, nor how to count ems in a hierarchical structure of ems - to use to take our census.
The one big thing to worry about is whether it is possible to ensure that conscious systems can compete with non-conscious processes. The pressure against allocating resources to maintaining consciousness may resemble the pressure today against allocating resources to nature preserves.
>if a corporation becomes “too big to fail”, then it has unlimited ability to siphon off unlimited profits from the rest of the economy.
Bankruptcy law is by no stretch a product of the market. Peter Gerdes's post drives home the point that from a "free market" perspective, bankruptcy law creates "inefficiencies."
As to corporations too big to fail: let's have a "free market" solution. End the limited liability of corporate investors! (Put the stockholders' personal wealth up for grabs, in proportion to their stock ownership.) Well, it's a "free market" solution, isn't it? What makes the insulation of stockholders exempt from the strictures of the free marketeers?
Or, if a corporation becomes “too big to fail”, then it has unlimited ability to siphon off unlimited profits from the rest of the economy.
Regulators of any rationally run economy would put regulations in place that would prevent all “too big to fail” scenarios.
>That is, other things being equal, it is better to own stocks in two companies than to own stock in a merger of the two. If you own stock in the merger of the two the poor performance of one component has unlimited ability to drain money from the profits of the other while if you own the stocks in each company then your profits from the first are protected by bankruptcy from the losses of the second.
Interesting point.
And the first clan will be Tessier-Ashpool...
Which empathy, and which solidarity?
If I'm split into a million instances of myself, I expect/hope those instances to be perfectly altruistic. But being able to rely on myself so heavily means that there's a temptation to not rely at all on others. (Specialization of labor means this will probably be a terrible decision, but I predict the EMish will be clans that attempt to be self-sufficient rather than trading with other clans.
Anon, there would be more altruism, but maybe not "far more" in the median clan.
Evan, this is mostly about who can make more copies; few humans need die.
Peter, yes that is a diseconomy of scale, but I'm skeptical that its the main one.
Regarding firms:
The floor on a firm's total value provided by bancruptcy provides a substantial pressure to keep businesses distinct (unmerged) unless there are economies of scale to be achieved by merging that overcome this effect.
That is, other things being equal, it is better to own stocks in two companies than to own stock in a merger of the two. If you own stock in the merger of the two the poor performance of one component has unlimited ability to drain money from the profits of the other while if you own the stocks in each company then your profits from the first are protected by bankruptcy from the losses of the second.
For example, I’d expect each occupation to be dominated by a few clans in the same way each product category is now dominated by a few firms.So instead of the way people today complain about how much they miss "mom and pop" stores were all figuratively killed off by a few large firms who outcompeted them for customers, people in the future will complain about how much they miss their friends and family members who were literally killed off by a few large em clans who outcompeted them for the resources to live on? Or at least, they'll complain until they're dead too?
Or is it more likely that pretty much everyone will still be alive, it's just that the "more successful" of them will be able to afford millions of copies of themselves whereas others will only be able to afford a few dozen?
And the “clan” of copies of the same original human would make sense as a unit of reputation and governance.This could also serve to drive a new form of altruism, where countless people identify with each other far more strongly than current people do. This could increase empathy and therefore solidarity.