You discuss the idea of clauses that allow for later escape from poorly-conceived deals as a guardrail. This feels like a powerful possibility which might add a significant amount of robustness.
But I’m wondering if the idea might be more broadly applicable than that. If we have the kind of machinery that allows us to add that kind of clause, maybe we could use it for the whole essence of the deal? Rather than specify up front what you wish to exchange, just specify the general principles of exchange—and trust the smarter and wiser actors of the future to interpret it in a fair and benevolent manner.
In general I think reading this article I’m finding that I have some sympathy for the central claim that there could be useful deals to strike early (that it isn’t possible to strike later); however I find myself feeling quite sceptical of the frameworks for thinking about different types of deals etc. -- I don’t see why we shouldn think that we have done more here than scrape the surface of the universe of possibilities, and my best guess is that actually-wise deals would look quite different than anything you’re outlining. Curious what you make of this—does this feel too radically sceptical or something?
You discuss the idea of clauses that allow for later escape from poorly-conceived deals as a guardrail. This feels like a powerful possibility which might add a significant amount of robustness.
But I’m wondering if the idea might be more broadly applicable than that. If we have the kind of machinery that allows us to add that kind of clause, maybe we could use it for the whole essence of the deal? Rather than specify up front what you wish to exchange, just specify the general principles of exchange—and trust the smarter and wiser actors of the future to interpret it in a fair and benevolent manner.
In general I think reading this article I’m finding that I have some sympathy for the central claim that there could be useful deals to strike early (that it isn’t possible to strike later); however I find myself feeling quite sceptical of the frameworks for thinking about different types of deals etc. -- I don’t see why we shouldn think that we have done more here than scrape the surface of the universe of possibilities, and my best guess is that actually-wise deals would look quite different than anything you’re outlining. Curious what you make of this—does this feel too radically sceptical or something?