I love your stuff and I’m very excited to see where you go next.
I would be very curious to hear what you have to say about more multi-polar threat scenarios and extending theories of agency into the collective intelligence frame.
What are your takes on Michael Levin’s work on agency and “morphologenesis” in relation to your neuroscience ideas? What do you think about claims of hierarchical extension of these models? How does this affect multipolar threat models? What are the fundamental processes that we should care about? When should we expand these concepts cognitively, when should we constrain them?
What do you think about claims of hierarchical extension of these models?
I don’t think I’ve heard such claims, or if I did, I probably would have ignored it as probably-irrelevant-to-me.
I would be very curious to hear what you have to say about more multi-polar threat scenarios and extending theories of agency into the collective intelligence frame.
I don’t have any grand conceptual framework for that, and tend to rely on widespread common-sense concepts like “race-to-the-bottom” and “incentives” and “competition” and “employees who are or aren’t mission-aligned” and “miscommunication” and “social norms” and “offense-defense balance” and “bureaucracy” and “selection effects” and “coordination problems” and “externalities” and “stag hunt” and “hard power” and “parallelization of effort” and on and on. I think that this is a good general approach; I think that grand conceptual frameworks are not what I or anyone needs; and instead we just need to keep clarifying and growing and applying this collection of ideas and considerations and frames. (…But perhaps I just don’t know what I’m missing.)
I love your stuff and I’m very excited to see where you go next.
I would be very curious to hear what you have to say about more multi-polar threat scenarios and extending theories of agency into the collective intelligence frame.
What are your takes on Michael Levin’s work on agency and “morphologenesis” in relation to your neuroscience ideas? What do you think about claims of hierarchical extension of these models? How does this affect multipolar threat models? What are the fundamental processes that we should care about? When should we expand these concepts cognitively, when should we constrain them?
(Giving some answers without justification; feel free to follow up.)
I haven’t found that work to be relevant or useful for what I’m doing.
Biology is full of cool things. It’s fun. I’ve been watching zoology videos in my free time. Can’t get enough. Not too work-relevant though, from my perspective.
I don’t think I’ve heard such claims, or if I did, I probably would have ignored it as probably-irrelevant-to-me.
I don’t have any grand conceptual framework for that, and tend to rely on widespread common-sense concepts like “race-to-the-bottom” and “incentives” and “competition” and “employees who are or aren’t mission-aligned” and “miscommunication” and “social norms” and “offense-defense balance” and “bureaucracy” and “selection effects” and “coordination problems” and “externalities” and “stag hunt” and “hard power” and “parallelization of effort” and on and on. I think that this is a good general approach; I think that grand conceptual frameworks are not what I or anyone needs; and instead we just need to keep clarifying and growing and applying this collection of ideas and considerations and frames. (…But perhaps I just don’t know what I’m missing.)