Mis-Understandings's Shortform
post by Mis-Understandings (robert-k) · 2025-02-28T23:05:00.186Z · LW · GW · 3 commentsContents
3 comments
3 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by Mis-Understandings (robert-k) · 2025-02-28T23:05:00.182Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The framework from gradual disempowerment seems to matter for longtermism even under AI-pessimism. Specifically, trajectory shaping for long term impact seems intractably hard at a first glance (since the future is unpredictable). But in general, if it becomes harder and harder to make improvements to society over time, that seems like it would be a problems.
Short-term social improvement projects (short term altruisim), seem to target durable improvements in current society and empowerment to continue to improve society. If they become disimpowered, the continued improvement of society is likely to slow.
Similarly, social changes that make it easier to continuously improve society will likely lead to continued social improvement. That is to say, a universe in which short-termism eventually becomes ineffective is a longterm problem.
In short, greedy plans for trajectory shaping might work at timescales of 100-1000 years, not just the 2-10 years of explicit planning from short term organizations.
Replies from: daijin, daijin↑ comment by daijin · 2025-02-28T23:33:37.774Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
What does 'greedy' mean in your 'in short'? My definition of greedy is in the computational sense i.e. reaching for low hanging fruit first.
You also say 'if (short term social improvements) become disempowered the continued improvement of society is likely to slow', and 'social changes that make it easier to continuously improve society will likely lead to continued social improvement'. This makes me believe that you are advocating for compounding social improvements which may cost more. Is this what you mean by greedy?
Also, have you heard of rolling wave planning?