Then I’d say that while your education and medical care ideas are good, they fail to account for the world-as-it-is. It’s easy to imagine a world-as-it-should-be, especially if you assume that people/society are different. It’s not enough. You have to design a smooth transition from a world-as-it-is to the world-as-it-should-be.
This seems unfair; it’s an April Fool’s joke/rant. It wasn’t intended to lay out a complete path to fixing the world. (Also, “I had to quixotically try to start Earth down the 200-year road to the de’a’na est shadarak”...)
This post lowers my estimate of your sanity waterline
Mine too, but not significantly. Everyone’s allowed a few mistakes, and I kinda dismissed the specifics of the real estate system as not the main point—the main point is that a world run by people who approached actual rationality, looking closely at what would actually benefit people and actively trying to avoid suboptimal Nash equilibria, would be pretty damn good compared to what we have now.
a world run by people who approached actual rationality, looking closely at what would actually benefit people and actively trying to avoid suboptimal Nash equilibria, would be pretty damn good compared to what we have now
Probably, but realize there are at least 2, maybe 3 premises here:
Run by people who approach actual rationality
These people want to benefit everyone and not just themselves
They actively try to avoid Nash equilibria (perhaps a consequence of #1)
Number 2 is the critical missing factor IMHO. I think that to a reasonable approximation the world does look like it’s formed (I hesitate to say “run” since I’m not sure anyone really does run more than small part of the world) by people behaving as rational actors in their own self-interests. Maybe UFI is the problem today, not UFAI.
This seems unfair; it’s an April Fool’s joke/rant. It wasn’t intended to lay out a complete path to fixing the world. (Also, “I had to quixotically try to start Earth down the 200-year road to the de’a’na est shadarak”...)
Mine too, but not significantly. Everyone’s allowed a few mistakes, and I kinda dismissed the specifics of the real estate system as not the main point—the main point is that a world run by people who approached actual rationality, looking closely at what would actually benefit people and actively trying to avoid suboptimal Nash equilibria, would be pretty damn good compared to what we have now.
Probably, but realize there are at least 2, maybe 3 premises here:
Run by people who approach actual rationality
These people want to benefit everyone and not just themselves
They actively try to avoid Nash equilibria (perhaps a consequence of #1)
Number 2 is the critical missing factor IMHO. I think that to a reasonable approximation the world does look like it’s formed (I hesitate to say “run” since I’m not sure anyone really does run more than small part of the world) by people behaving as rational actors in their own self-interests. Maybe UFI is the problem today, not UFAI.