On both points: humility. The effect of ordering irrational people around is not predictable enough for it to be a better option than having a taskforce that can guide itself rationally. (And, as Vladimir says, if you end up needing the taskforce to do something requiring rationality, you’re out of luck.)
Ordering a thousand fanatic janitors to program an optimizing compiler will bear no fruit.
Did you actually think about that for five minutes?
Order your thousand fanatic janitors to study computer programming. Now you’ve got, say, 990 fanatic janitors begging forgiveness from the Great Leader for their failure, and ten minimally-competent programmers. Programmers continue training, while janitors atone by seeing to the programmers’ every material need.
Consider how much time some potential world-changing genius wastes with preparing their own food, shopping for clothes, waiting in line for things, and so on. Given fanatical dedication to a cause, and a staff of less-skilled but equally-dedicated assistants, one of the chosen few could simply say “I want a ham sandwich” and get back to work, knowing that a ham sandwich prepared exactly to their previously-expressed specifications will be presented to them within minutes, without another precious thought allocated to the details of logistics.
Because you don’t want an irrational taskforce.
It’s irrational to want a rational taskforce, rather than an efficient one.
Perhaps the point is that an irrational task force won’t be efficient long-term, in subtle ways that can not be controlled by ordering them around.
Justify this assertion. It sounds like a rationalization to me.
Also, I see no need for a long-term taskforce, seeing as the game will soon change radically for Reasons That May Not Be Named.
On both points: humility. The effect of ordering irrational people around is not predictable enough for it to be a better option than having a taskforce that can guide itself rationally. (And, as Vladimir says, if you end up needing the taskforce to do something requiring rationality, you’re out of luck.)
Ordering a thousand fanatic janitors to program an optimizing compiler will bear no fruit.
There is enough uncertainty in this business to worry about planning humanity’s development even 150 years ahead.
Did you actually think about that for five minutes?
Order your thousand fanatic janitors to study computer programming. Now you’ve got, say, 990 fanatic janitors begging forgiveness from the Great Leader for their failure, and ten minimally-competent programmers. Programmers continue training, while janitors atone by seeing to the programmers’ every material need.
Consider how much time some potential world-changing genius wastes with preparing their own food, shopping for clothes, waiting in line for things, and so on. Given fanatical dedication to a cause, and a staff of less-skilled but equally-dedicated assistants, one of the chosen few could simply say “I want a ham sandwich” and get back to work, knowing that a ham sandwich prepared exactly to their previously-expressed specifications will be presented to them within minutes, without another precious thought allocated to the details of logistics.
Stop equating intelligence with LW-rationality.
Stop equating skills with intelligence.
If I replace “intelligence” with “skills”, the point still stands.
Rationality is a skill. Replacing “intelligence” with “skills” gives the following point: