In the case of a government locking in their own power, it seems like you are holding the motivations constant and just saying âpower lets you accumulate more powerâ or something right?
The obvious dis-analogy here that I am sure you are aware of on some level, but which I didnât really see you foreground here is that in the case of either the pause bootstrap or the constitutional deliberation bootstrap, the motivations of the actors are themselves in flux for this period. There isnât as clear of a story you can tell here necessarily about why acceleration should occur at all, but I take it the implied accelerant to our explosion is something like âadditional deliberation/â pausing is factually correct and goodâ and that âadditional deliberation/â pausing will improve epistemic conditionâ.
Also, let me just flag that the âconstitutional conventions of ever greater lengthâ example you gave illustrates a world that is gradually locked in for larger and larger stretches of time not merely one where there is an ever increasing amount of deliberation or something. Like, plausibly, that is an account of gradually sliding into lock in first for a one month interval, then for one year interval, etc.
Good stuff though. Iâve been wrestling with this kind of morality laden futurology and âwhat victory looks likeâ a lot lately, not all in the context of AI but also just against Malthusian traps and the wild state of nature. I tend to agree that viatopia, the great reflection, and any really âany scenario where wise deliberation will occur and be acted uponâ are beautiful and desirable waystations.
In the case of a government locking in their own power, it seems like you are holding the motivations constant and just saying âpower lets you accumulate more powerâ or something right?
The obvious dis-analogy here that I am sure you are aware of on some level, but which I didnât really see you foreground here is that in the case of either the pause bootstrap or the constitutional deliberation bootstrap, the motivations of the actors are themselves in flux for this period. There isnât as clear of a story you can tell here necessarily about why acceleration should occur at all, but I take it the implied accelerant to our explosion is something like âadditional deliberation/â pausing is factually correct and goodâ and that âadditional deliberation/â pausing will improve epistemic conditionâ.
Also, let me just flag that the âconstitutional conventions of ever greater lengthâ example you gave illustrates a world that is gradually locked in for larger and larger stretches of time not merely one where there is an ever increasing amount of deliberation or something. Like, plausibly, that is an account of gradually sliding into lock in first for a one month interval, then for one year interval, etc.
Good stuff though. Iâve been wrestling with this kind of morality laden futurology and âwhat victory looks likeâ a lot lately, not all in the context of AI but also just against Malthusian traps and the wild state of nature. I tend to agree that viatopia, the great reflection, and any really âany scenario where wise deliberation will occur and be acted uponâ are beautiful and desirable waystations.