Dwarkesh Patel: evaluation

Transcript context

…I think the claim is a little stronger, not just that you could have some exceptions, but that historically and today we see the exceptions. They just haven’t really taken over the economy historically because there have been these dissipation shocks, as they’re called. They’ve given it to their kids who squandered it, or they put it in foundations which spent it. It’s not really a shock, but… People might have liked to fill the universe with monuments to themselves and live forever, very wealthy. It’s a weird preference, but it’s not a hypothetical preference. I think that’s the claim. But who knows what’s going on in their heads? Even without the intrinsic preference for accumulation, there are some instrumental reasons why some people might value accumulation, which is also worth bringing up. There’s a desire for political, philosophical, or religious influence. People get into an arms race over what society looks like and what people believe. Similarly but differently, because it’s not an arms race, there’s just total utilitarian philanthropy. When I think about why it might be good to have a lot of wealth in the future as a good classical utilitarian, to me, the value—or at least one way you could have an almost unsatiating utility function in having wealth in the future—is to create new happy beings. They just add to the total welfare of the world. This idea goes at least as far back as Bostrom’s astronomical waste point, that we could put Dyson spheres around the stars and turn all the energy into really happy simulations and whatnot. I think the particular greediness of this optimizer doesn’t matter, what they’re greedy for. Forgetting about utilitarian philosophy or whatever, a pure von Neumann probe has… I don’t know, is this an accurate way to say it? They just have high marginal value for the random solar system they’ll occupy because that turns into more solar systems. A von Neumann probe is a thing that can exist. That’s a very greedy optimizer. If we’re talking about whether they’ll dominate the economy, maybe this is a technicality. But we only count final consumption goods and investment goods as GDP. If there’s just this phenomenon—…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.