LessWrong 2.0 Reader

Superficially, human minds look like they are way too diverse for that to cause human extinction by accident. If new ideas toast some specific human subgroup, other subgroups will not be equally affected.

Silicon Valley seems to allocate power to a systematically different group of people than would acquire it through democratic elections or the internal politics of the PRC.

This may have jinxed SV and caused the rise of Sam Altman. (Shades of Mao Zedong and his Cultural Revolution.)

"But since it is is at least somewhat intelligent/predictive, it can make the move of "acausal collusion" with its own tendency to hallucinate, in generating its "chain"-of-"thought"."

I am not understanding what this sentence is trying to say. I understand what an acausal trade is. Could you phrase it more directly?

I cannot see why you require the step that the model needs to be reasoning acausally for it to develop a strategy of deceptively hallucinating citations.

What concrete predictions does the model in which this is an example of "acausal collusion" make?

Added!

Added!

Money helps. I could probably buy a lot of dignity points for a billion dollars. With a trillion variance definitely goes up because you could try crazy stuff and could backfire. (I mean true for a billion too). But EV of such a world is better. 

I don't think there's anything that's as simple as writing a check though.

US Congress gives money to specific things. I do not have a specific plan for a trillion dollars.

I'd bet against Terrance Tao being some kind of amazing breakthrough researcher who changes the playing field.

My answer (and I think Ruby's) answer to most of these questions is "no", but What Money Cannot Buy [LW · GW] reasons, as well as "geniuses don't often actually generalize and are hard to motivate with money."

2. It uses whatever means to eliminate other countries nuclear arsenals

I think the part where other nations just roll with this is underexplained.

Gradual/Abrupt

Which is?