0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
First, select the most important thing/preferred condition that you want to achieve, which you will defend at all cost.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/SCs4KpcShb23hcTni/ideal-governance-for-companies-countries-and-moreI'm interested in the topic of ideal governance: what kind of governance system should you set up, if you're starting from scratch and can do it however you want?Here "you" could be a company, a nonprofit, an informal association, or a country. And "governance system" means a Constitution, charter, and/or bylaws answering questions like: "Who has the authority to make decisions (Congress, board of directors, etc.), and how are they selected, and what rules do they have to follow, and what's the process for changing those rules?"
Who votes, how often, and what voting system is used?How many representatives are there in each representative body? How are they divided up (one representative per geographic area, or party-list proportional representation, or something else)?What term limits exist for the different entities?Do particular kinds of decisions require supermajorities?Which restrictions are enshrined in a hard-to-change Constitution (and how hard is it to change), vs. being left to the people in power at the moment?
One way of thinking about the "ideal governance" question is: what kinds of designs could exist that aren't common today? And how should a new organization/country/etc. think about what design is going to be best for its purposes, beyond "doing what's usually done"?
For any new institution, it seems like the stakes are potentially high - in some important sense, picking a governance system is a "one-time thing" (any further changes have to be made using the rules of the existing system1).Perhaps because of this, there doesn't seem to be much use of innovative governance designs in high-stakes settings. For example, here are a number of ideas I've seen floating around that seem cool and interesting, and ought to be considered if someone could set up a governance system however they wanted:Sortition, or choosing people randomly to have certain powers and responsibilities. An extreme version could be: "Instead of everyone voting for President, randomly select 1000 Americans; give them several months to consider their choice, perhaps paid so they can do so full-time; then have them vote."The idea is to pick a subset of people who are both (a) representative of the larger population (hence the randomness); (b) will have a stronger case for putting serious time and thought into their decisions (hence the small number).It's solving a similar problem that "representative democracy" (voters elect representatives) is trying to solve, but in a different way.Proportional decision-making. Currently, if Congress is deciding how to spend $1 trillion, a coalition controlling 51% of the votes can control all $1 trillion, whereas a coalition controlling 49% of the votes controls $0. Proportional decision-making could be implemented as "Each representative controls an equal proportion of the spending," so a coalition with 20% of the votes controls 20% of the budget. It's less clear how to apply this idea to other sorts of bills (e.g., illegalizing an activity rather than spending money), but there are plenty of possibilities.2Quadratic voting, in which people vote on multiple things at once; and can cast more votes for things they care about more (with a "quadratic pricing rule" intended to make the number of votes an "honest signal" of how much someone cares).Reset/Jubilee: maybe it would be good for some organizations to periodically redo their governance mostly from scratch, subject only to the most basic principles. Constitutions could contain a provision like "Every N years, there shall be a new Constitution selected. The 10 candidate Constitutions with the most signatures shall be presented on a ballot; the Constitution receiving the most votes is the new Constitution, except that it may not contradict or nullify this provision. This provision can be prevented from occurring by [supermajority provision], and removed entirely by [stronger supermajority]."
If we were starting a country or company from scratch, which of the above ideas should we integrate with more traditional structures, and how, and what else should we have in our toolbox? That's the question of ideal governance.
Let's say that 70% of the Parliament members vote for bill X, and 30% vote against. "Proportional chance voting" literally uses a weighted lottery to pass bill X with 70% probability, and reject it with 30% probability (you can think of this like rolling a 10-sided die, and passing the bill if it's 7 or under).A key part of this is that the members are supposed to negotiate before voting and holding the lottery. For example, maybe 10 of the 30 members who are against bill X offer to switch to supporting it if some change is made. The nice property here is that rather than having a "tyranny of the majority" where the minority has no bargaining power, we have a situation where the 70-member coalition would still love to make a deal with folks in the minority, to further increase the probability that they get their way.Quote from the paper that I am interpreting: "Under proportional chances voting, each delegate receives a single vote on each motion. Before they vote, there is a period during which delegates may negotiate: this could include trading votes on one motion for votes on another, introducing novel options for consideration within a given motion, or forming deals with others to vote for a compromise option that both consider to be acceptable. The delegates then cast their ballots for one particular option in each motion, just as they might in a plurality voting system. But rather than determining the winning option to be the one with the most votes, each option is given a chance of winning proportional to its share of the votes."
What's on Elon Musk's mind? In conversation with head of TED Chris Anderson, Musk details how the radical new innovations he's working on -- Tesla's intelligent humanoid robot Optimus, SpaceX's otherworldly Starship and Neuralink's brain-machine interfaces, among others -- could help maximize the lifespan of humanity and create a world where goods and services are abundant and accessible for all. It's a compelling vision of a future worth being excited about. (Recorded at the Tesla Texas Gigafactory on April 6, 2022)
From a comment:Interview timeline*The future 00:30*Avoiding climate catastrophy 01:20*Batteries 🔋 04:15*The future is bright 07:30*Self driving cars 🚗 09:00*Predicted timeline of progress 18:00*Optimus robot 🤖 20:30*AI safety 🦺 27:00*AI-Human symbiosis & brain 🧠 computer 🖥️ interface 29:30*Starship 37:30*Going to Mars 44:30*Transportation 54:04*Company for the future of humanity 55:40*Elon's wealth 59:00*Elon's drive 01:04:10
"Proportional chance voting" literally uses a weighted lottery to pass bill X with 70% probability, and reject it with 30% probability
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 14/04/2022 23:55:02 "Proportional chance voting" literally uses a weighted lottery to pass bill X with 70% probability, and reject it with 30% probability So do we go to war / have a national heath service / abolish the death sentence. / give Hamdani the Nobel Prize...or not?
A key part of this is that the members are supposed to negotiate before voting and holding the lottery. For example, maybe 10 of the 30 members who are against bill X offer to switch to supporting it if some change is made. The nice property here is that rather than having a "tyranny of the majority" where the minority has no bargaining power, we have a situation where the 70-member coalition would still love to make a deal with folks in the minority, to further increase the probability that they get their way.
“It doesn’t sound that great being a dying mammal to me.”That’s Tim Urban, founder of the popular blog Wait But Why, making his pitch for the development of robotic and technical enhancements to the human body — a school of thought known as transhumanism. For Urban, the assumption that “natural” is inherently good is one that needs reconsidering. And while the ideas of transhumanism may sound like science fiction, some of them are much closer to reality than you might think — with cyborgs already walking among us.
We Were Right! Real Inner MisalignmentResearchers ran real versions of the thought experiments in the 'Mesa-Optimisers' videos!What they found won't shock you (if you've been paying attention)
Quote from: alancalverd on 14/05/2022 16:11:15The object of philosophy is to tell people that they don't (or even can't) understand the obvious. I think HY is an undercover philosopher.It looks like you need to read the introduction to philosophy. Here's a book recommendation I got in my twitter feed. T H E GR E AT CONVERSATIONA Historical Introduction to PhilosophyEIGHTH EDITIONNORMAN MELCHERTProfessor Emeritus, Lehigh UniversityDAVID R. MORROWVisiting Fellow, George Mason UniversityHere's a part of the foreword. QuoteOne of the authors of this book had a teacher—a short, white-haired, elderly gentleman with a thick German accent—who used to say, “Whether you will philosophize or won’t philosophize, you must philosophize.” By this, he meant that we can’t help making decisions about these crucial matters. We make them either well or badly, conscious of what we are doing or just stumbling along.
The object of philosophy is to tell people that they don't (or even can't) understand the obvious. I think HY is an undercover philosopher.
One of the authors of this book had a teacher—a short, white-haired, elderly gentleman with a thick German accent—who used to say, “Whether you will philosophize or won’t philosophize, you must philosophize.” By this, he meant that we can’t help making decisions about these crucial matters. We make them either well or badly, conscious of what we are doing or just stumbling along.
If you think that your current philosophy is unsatisfactory,
I think all philosophy is unsatisfactory.
At best, it contributes nothing to human wellbeing. At worst, it leads to politics and religion.
Summary in two-minutes: 1] You need an objective2] A change in the objective changes the strategy required to achieve it – change with efficiency3] If the objective was wrong, do not worry and aim again. – try to define and achieve the new objective, improve the predictor, you will find why the ideas that did not work don’t work4] Zoom out and evaluate – Phase1: collect experiences, Phase2: experience we play; relearn, recalibrate and reflect.5] If you find something that works, hold on to it – explore more, the pain will be worth it, seek the light in similar directions.6] As long as you keep moving, you will be progressing – Random Walk, A mathematical theorem- After N steps, the expected distance from where we’ve started is proportional to the square root of N. That is progress, never stagnate!
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 11/06/2021 06:40:32Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 05/06/2021 22:41:27The only similarity applicable to every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future.I realise that I have expressed the idea of universal terminal goal in some different ways. I feel that this one is the least controversial and easiest to follow. So, I think I have arrived to the final conclusion about universal terminal goal. It came from definitions of each word in the phrase, and take their implications into account. Goal is the noun, while terminal and universal are the adjectives that describe the noun.The word Goal means preferred state or condition in the future. If it's not preferred, it can't be a goal. If it's already happened in the past, it can't be a goal either. Although it's possible that the goal is to make future condition similar to preferred condition in the past as reference. The preference requires the existence of at least one conscious entity. Preference can't exist in a universe without consciousness, so can't a goal. The word Terminal requires that the goal is seen from the persepective of conscious entities that exist in the furthest conceivable future. If the future point of reference is too close to the present, it would expire soon and the goal won't be usable anymore.The word Universal requires that no other constraint should be added to the goal determined by aforementioned words. The only valid constraints have already been set by the words goal and terminal.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 05/06/2021 22:41:27The only similarity applicable to every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future.I realise that I have expressed the idea of universal terminal goal in some different ways. I feel that this one is the least controversial and easiest to follow.
The only similarity applicable to every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future.