When I think about the future, I think about how much better extreme old age is going to be. I have no doubt we're going to get drugs that can stimulate the brain enough to not spend all day dozing in a quiet haze. While on the other side, old folks who grew up with the internet will know exactly how to spend their time when their bodies get too frail to move around a lot. So yes, centenarians alternating posting online, watching video essays, and playing Stellaris all day long. And maybe, just maybe, some of them will be tempted to write and share some history of their own.
Dictators living longer is an unfortunate side effect, but 20 billion extra years of life for human beings on one side (a billion people, 20 years each that is) has got to balance having dictators maybe last an additional 20 years.
Ha, yes when I retire, three or four decades from now, I want to spend a proper month finally beating a Stellaris, CK3, and/or EU5 game. Maybe when we are grandparents my wife and I can finally finished that Baldurs Gate game we started.
I have enough aches and pains at 50 that I can’t imagine wanting to live past 80. Like a Numenorean, I think we should be content with the time we have and not seek to continually extend it. Each generation defines itself in part by coming of age in tension with the generation that preceded it, and ultimately replacing it. Our lives may lengthen but our youth will not.
To the extent that AI helps people learn the truth, it seems like it should just be straightforwardly good for legislating. This idea that negotiating legislators trying to hoodwink each other is actually somehow good sounds crazy to me! In markets, we call that a problem of asymmetric information and pretty much everyone not currently doing the hoodwinking agrees that it's good to find ways to minimize that.
The list of corrections gives me the impression that the guest just makes up numbers when he wants to say something impressive. It causes me to question his reliability and reconsider my intention to spend time listening to the podcast. I think it would be better to just say the Cultural Revolution killed a lot of people than to quote a number that may be 10 times too large.
He probably just got it confused/conflated with the famines of the Great Leap Forward, where (quick wiki check) 46 million is the high end estimate. Not great, but I can see how you would lump all the people that Mao got killed through bad policies together.
That makes sense. He's also way off on unemployment rate and AI approval. I just think that if you don’t really know a number to a reasonably good approximation you should stick to some version of large or small or growing or shrinking. Otherwise you risk sounding dishonest, manipulative, ignorant, or reckless. I'm tired of arguments based on exaggeration.
I'll take as much life as you got on offer.
When I think about the future, I think about how much better extreme old age is going to be. I have no doubt we're going to get drugs that can stimulate the brain enough to not spend all day dozing in a quiet haze. While on the other side, old folks who grew up with the internet will know exactly how to spend their time when their bodies get too frail to move around a lot. So yes, centenarians alternating posting online, watching video essays, and playing Stellaris all day long. And maybe, just maybe, some of them will be tempted to write and share some history of their own.
Dictators living longer is an unfortunate side effect, but 20 billion extra years of life for human beings on one side (a billion people, 20 years each that is) has got to balance having dictators maybe last an additional 20 years.
Ha, yes when I retire, three or four decades from now, I want to spend a proper month finally beating a Stellaris, CK3, and/or EU5 game. Maybe when we are grandparents my wife and I can finally finished that Baldurs Gate game we started.
I have enough aches and pains at 50 that I can’t imagine wanting to live past 80. Like a Numenorean, I think we should be content with the time we have and not seek to continually extend it. Each generation defines itself in part by coming of age in tension with the generation that preceded it, and ultimately replacing it. Our lives may lengthen but our youth will not.
"I plan to live forever, of course, but barring that I'd settle for a couple thousand years. Even five hundred would be pretty nice."
-- CEO Nwabudike Morgan, MorganLink 3DVision Interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdCB9yE9Hcc
To the extent that AI helps people learn the truth, it seems like it should just be straightforwardly good for legislating. This idea that negotiating legislators trying to hoodwink each other is actually somehow good sounds crazy to me! In markets, we call that a problem of asymmetric information and pretty much everyone not currently doing the hoodwinking agrees that it's good to find ways to minimize that.
The list of corrections gives me the impression that the guest just makes up numbers when he wants to say something impressive. It causes me to question his reliability and reconsider my intention to spend time listening to the podcast. I think it would be better to just say the Cultural Revolution killed a lot of people than to quote a number that may be 10 times too large.
He probably just got it confused/conflated with the famines of the Great Leap Forward, where (quick wiki check) 46 million is the high end estimate. Not great, but I can see how you would lump all the people that Mao got killed through bad policies together.
That makes sense. He's also way off on unemployment rate and AI approval. I just think that if you don’t really know a number to a reasonably good approximation you should stick to some version of large or small or growing or shrinking. Otherwise you risk sounding dishonest, manipulative, ignorant, or reckless. I'm tired of arguments based on exaggeration.