Voting is one example. Who gets “human rights” is another. A third is “who is included, with what weight, in the sum over well being in a utility function”. A fourth is “we’re learning human values to optimize them: who or what counts as human”? A fifth is economic fairness,
I think voting is the only one with fairly simple observable implementations. The others (well, and voting, too) are all messy enough that it’s pretty tenuous to draw conclusions about, especially without noting all the exceptions and historical violence that led to the current state (which may or may not be an equilibrium, and it may or may not be possible to list the forces in opposition that create the equilibrium).
I think the biggest piece missing from these predictions/analysis/recommendations is the acknowledgement of misalignment and variance in capabilities of existing humans. All current social systems are in tension—people struggling and striving in both cooperation and competition. The latter component is brutal and real, and it gets somewhat sublimated with wealth, but doesn’t go away.
I think voting is the only one with fairly simple observable implementations. The others (well, and voting, too) are all messy enough that it’s pretty tenuous to draw conclusions about, especially without noting all the exceptions and historical violence that led to the current state (which may or may not be an equilibrium, and it may or may not be possible to list the forces in opposition that create the equilibrium).
I think the biggest piece missing from these predictions/analysis/recommendations is the acknowledgement of misalignment and variance in capabilities of existing humans. All current social systems are in tension—people struggling and striving in both cooperation and competition. The latter component is brutal and real, and it gets somewhat sublimated with wealth, but doesn’t go away.
I make that point at length in Part 3 of the sequence.