Here’s my main argument against emphasising mistake theory over conflict theory: you’re only able to be a mistake theorist after the conflict theorists have done most of the hard work.
Upvoted for bring up this argument, which is new to me.
But more likely, the struggle to rally people without power to keep the powerful in check will be a Red Queen’s race that we simply need to keep running for as long as we want prosperity to last.
This doesn’t make much sense in two of your examples: factory farming and concern for future generations. In those cases it seems that you instead have to convince the “powerful” that they are wrong.
But what about conflict theorists in 2018 who have learned from history that power corrupts, and that seizing control isn’t an automatic final victory?
Do you have any group or movement in mind that fits into this category?
I think besides “power corrupts”, my main problem with “conflict theorists” is that optimizing for gaining power often requires “political correctness”, i.e., implicitly or explicitly ignoring certain facts that are inconvenient for building a social movement or gaining power. And then this political correctness gets embedded into the power structure as unquestionable “truths” once the social movement actually gains power, and subsequently causes massive policy distortions. (Whereas “power corrupts” has more to do with being corrupted after obtaining power.) Do you have a response or thoughts on this?
ETA: Perhaps “ideology” is a better word to use here, because “politically correct” has specific connotations that I don’t mean to invoke.
This doesn’t make much sense in two of your examples: factory farming and concern for future generations. In those cases it seems that you instead have to convince the “powerful” that they are wrong.
I think it’s quite a mistake-theoretic view to think that factory farming persists because powerful people are wrong about it. Instead, the (conflict-theoretic) view which I’d defend here is something like “It doesn’t matter what politicians think about the morality of factory farming, very few politicians are moral enough to take the career hit of standing up for what’s right when it’s unpopular, and many are being bought off by the evil meat/farming lobbies. So we need to muster enough mass popular support that politicians see which way the wind is blowing and switch sides en masse (like they did with gay marriage).”
Then the relevance to “the struggle to rally people without power to keep the powerful in check will be a Red Queen’s race that we simply need to keep running for as long as we want prosperity to last” is simply that there’s no long-term way to change politicians from being weak-willed and immoral—you just need to keep fighting through all these individual issues as they come up.
I think besides “power corrupts”, my main problem with “conflict theorists” is that optimizing for gaining power often requires [ideology], i.e., implicitly or explicitly ignoring certain facts that are inconvenient for building a social movement or gaining power. And then this [ideology] gets embedded into the power structure as unquestionable “truths” once the social movement actually gains power, and subsequently causes massive policy distortions.
(Warning: super simplified, off the cuff thoughts here, from a perspective I only partially endorse): I guess my inner conflict theorist believes that it’s okay for there to be significant distortions in policy as long as there are mechanisms by which new ideologies can arise to address them, and that it’s worthwhile to have this in exchange for dynamism and less political stagnation.
Like, you know what was one of the biggest policy distortions of all time? World War 2. And yet it had a revitalising effect on the American economy, decreased inequality, and led to a boom period.
Whereas if you don’t have new ideologies rising and gaining power, then you can go around fixing individual problems all day, but the core allocation of power in society will become so entrenched that the policy distortions are disastrous.
Yeah, Vitalik’s “On Collusion” definitely seems relevant (I was going to mention that myself before I saw you add it). And I also had a thought that this ties into Paul’s “strategy-stealing assumption” which basically is an assumption of “end of history”, i.e., that allocation of power will be entrenched.
My takeaway from all this so far is that “history” consists of powerless people gaining power by better coordinating amongst themselves, which often involved ideology (non-epistemic beliefs). My guess is that with the advent of AGI, “history” might look very different, with “better coordinating” looking more like technological advances (e.g., better approximation to utility maximizers who can merge) instead of politics and ideology.
At least one difference from today is that the powerless today at least control their own bodies and labor, and the powerful do not actually have much physical power and instead have to depend on social structures to enforce their power and achieve their goals. So with enough coordination the powerless can simply ignore/overthrow the existing power structures. With AI though (even if intent-aligned), humans who are “powerless” today could become literally powerless.
So we need to muster enough mass popular support that politicians see which way the wind is blowing and switch sides en masse (like they did with gay marriage).”
Sorry, illusion of transparency strikes again here. What I meant by “powerful” in that sentence was “humans” not “politicians”. I’m interested in having a chat about this topic where maybe we can talk more efficiently. Please PM or email me if you’re also interested.
Whereas if you don’t have new ideologies rising and gaining power, then you can go around fixing individual problems all day, but the core allocation of power in society will become so entrenched that the policy distortions are disastrous.
ETA: I would be interested in understanding your perspective here better. Why do you think entrenchment of allocation of power will lead to disaster?
Upvoted for bring up this argument, which is new to me.
This doesn’t make much sense in two of your examples: factory farming and concern for future generations. In those cases it seems that you instead have to convince the “powerful” that they are wrong.
Do you have any group or movement in mind that fits into this category?
I think besides “power corrupts”, my main problem with “conflict theorists” is that optimizing for gaining power often requires “political correctness”, i.e., implicitly or explicitly ignoring certain facts that are inconvenient for building a social movement or gaining power. And then this political correctness gets embedded into the power structure as unquestionable “truths” once the social movement actually gains power, and subsequently causes massive policy distortions. (Whereas “power corrupts” has more to do with being corrupted after obtaining power.) Do you have a response or thoughts on this?
ETA: Perhaps “ideology” is a better word to use here, because “politically correct” has specific connotations that I don’t mean to invoke.
I think it’s quite a mistake-theoretic view to think that factory farming persists because powerful people are wrong about it. Instead, the (conflict-theoretic) view which I’d defend here is something like “It doesn’t matter what politicians think about the morality of factory farming, very few politicians are moral enough to take the career hit of standing up for what’s right when it’s unpopular, and many are being bought off by the evil meat/farming lobbies. So we need to muster enough mass popular support that politicians see which way the wind is blowing and switch sides en masse (like they did with gay marriage).”
Then the relevance to “the struggle to rally people without power to keep the powerful in check will be a Red Queen’s race that we simply need to keep running for as long as we want prosperity to last” is simply that there’s no long-term way to change politicians from being weak-willed and immoral—you just need to keep fighting through all these individual issues as they come up.
(Warning: super simplified, off the cuff thoughts here, from a perspective I only partially endorse): I guess my inner conflict theorist believes that it’s okay for there to be significant distortions in policy as long as there are mechanisms by which new ideologies can arise to address them, and that it’s worthwhile to have this in exchange for dynamism and less political stagnation.
Like, you know what was one of the biggest policy distortions of all time? World War 2. And yet it had a revitalising effect on the American economy, decreased inequality, and led to a boom period.
Whereas if you don’t have new ideologies rising and gaining power, then you can go around fixing individual problems all day, but the core allocation of power in society will become so entrenched that the policy distortions are disastrous.
(Edited to add: this feels relevant.)
Yeah, Vitalik’s “On Collusion” definitely seems relevant (I was going to mention that myself before I saw you add it). And I also had a thought that this ties into Paul’s “strategy-stealing assumption” which basically is an assumption of “end of history”, i.e., that allocation of power will be entrenched.
My takeaway from all this so far is that “history” consists of powerless people gaining power by better coordinating amongst themselves, which often involved ideology (non-epistemic beliefs). My guess is that with the advent of AGI, “history” might look very different, with “better coordinating” looking more like technological advances (e.g., better approximation to utility maximizers who can merge) instead of politics and ideology.
At least one difference from today is that the powerless today at least control their own bodies and labor, and the powerful do not actually have much physical power and instead have to depend on social structures to enforce their power and achieve their goals. So with enough coordination the powerless can simply ignore/overthrow the existing power structures. With AI though (even if intent-aligned), humans who are “powerless” today could become literally powerless.
Sorry, illusion of transparency strikes again here. What I meant by “powerful” in that sentence was “humans” not “politicians”. I’m interested in having a chat about this topic where maybe we can talk more efficiently. Please PM or email me if you’re also interested.
ETA: I would be interested in understanding your perspective here better. Why do you think entrenchment of allocation of power will lead to disaster?
I hadn’t read this post when it came out, apparently (or forgot about it). Thanks for bumping it to my attention