34 Comments

goddamn. what being insufficiently materialist does to a motherfucker.

Expand full comment

What do you mean?

Expand full comment

Hi,

I've only recently become a part of your Substack community but have been following your work on AI and Radical Alignment for some time. I’ve left about the last month’s worth of your posts unread in my email so I could come back to them and dive into them more. I am just a young person, mostly learning about life, but I want to hold on to the positive imagination of my childhood of what really could be possible in the future. I want to dig into each of your latest posts from about the past month and then specifically delve into your thoughts on the transition period—since this is specifically what I spend most of my time thinking through—so I thought that would be the perfect one to detail. I think this will mostly be an exercise in expanding my cognitive horizon and evaluating if I need to make any updates to my mental model related to bringing about the best world possible.

My General Plan:

Skim and synthesize each article manually and with the aid of ChatGPT. (Emphasis on the ‘skim’ part. So I apologize ahead of time if I misinterpreted some points because I did not read or understand something important).

Specifically address each point in the transition period article and draft my full outline of trying to think through each of the ideas. (Did not end up doing this).

Starting with “Nebula Protocol: How Decentralization Might Solve Everything,” on Oct 31, 2024

My Thoughts Related to This Article:

Researched Worldcoin years ago as I was thinking of developing something similar. I have thought a lot about this whole concept of proof of humanity and identity, and there is no simple solution that solves all possible requirements.

(My list of requirements:)

Here's a concise summary of the key requirements for authenticating identity while maintaining privacy:

Core Authentication Requirements:

Dynamic profile system that evolves with the user while protecting privacy.

Unique identifier system that cannot be duplicated or falsified.

Privacy and Security:

Strong data encryption and protection.

Optional sharing of personal information.

Clear consent and data usage policies.

Profile Evolution:

Ability for profiles to grow while maintaining unique identity.

System to track changes securely.

Prevention of profile manipulation.

Technical Needs:

Robust verification processes.

Behavioral analysis to verify human interaction.

Secure authentication that preserves anonymity when needed.

David is suggesting a way to solve the impossible paradox by using three methods: interconnected blockchain groups, Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs), and Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHEs). All of which make sense if it's actually possible to create the systems for these without creating loopholes to access the systems themselves. I can see how math can help; I have thought about how to create a language where meaning has a high degree of certainty via the use of words and models. Although meaning can seemingly never be 100% certain, if we use the analogy from quantum mechanics, of the idea of collapsing certainty, you could have something where, although you do not have the underlying data, based on the encrypted representation of what you have, you might be able to create the mathematical ability to collapse onto someone's identity with near certainty. I wonder how truly difficult this might be, though.

If you have true AI, I'm not sure how you could ensure that they would act on your behalf in your best interests. This gets to the whole issue that I've thought about and that Carl Shulman has talked about related to how to ensure that AI will work for you, yet hold to the highest standards that would act as back doors to ensure that bad actors cannot do malice with their AIs. I think in principle you could do the same quantum collapsing certainty thing by not having true AI but rather one that you know with a high level of certainty has been coded to do the right thing.

Hence, why the portion on addressing scams and fraud is so important.

Having some sort of ledger would be very important, handled through some sort of blockchain.

The community decision-making framework makes a lot of sense in general and would seem mostly ideal.

Next, “The Grand Struggle” on Nov 6, 2024

It's funny because I indeed think to myself something similar to "I think I should write a story about the undergirding philosophies of utopian worlds!" on a very regular basis.

The idea of "the universe’s apparent purpose is to know itself through the vehicle of conscious entities such as ourselves" seems possible and a reasonable solution to the reality we see around us.

I agree with this sentiment entirely: "The philosophy embraces the paradox that complete understanding will always remain beyond our grasp, outside our cognitive horizon."

I've thought directly about this contention between the idea of the Grand Struggle versus the Great Mystery. Specifically, I've thought that the Grand Struggle thinking is quite pessimistic and not the ultimate thing that we would want to work toward.

Looking forward to the manifestos.

I will skip over “Consciousness Emerges at the Edge of Chaos.” I got an overview of this from a podcast and generally think it is cool. I'll also skip over a couple of the more political-related discussions.

Next, “A Post-Labor Economics Manifesto” on Nov 9, 2024

In general, I think it is highly important to think about these things. But I will say now that this may not be the end-all-be-all when it comes to what actually would make for the best possible future. For example, I think likely the best possible future might not involve having to worry about any of these things. So to me, this is a bit more of an intermediary step.

All of the points outlined in the TLDR make sense and are points that I've thought through before.

Next, “A Lesson on Epistemic Tribes” on Nov 12, 2024

I did listen to the entirety of the podcast that was discussed in relation to Yudkowsky. My takeaway was that, again, no one really knows anything. In general, then, we should more than likely go with the approach of "whoever is most paranoid wins" approach.

I suppose this is a lesson in how to get something done. Although I suspect it's not the only way to get something done—and likely not the most ideal. It's also an insight into what to watch out for. In fact, what to avoid when trying to create something truly beneficial for humanity.

Next, “What do I mean when I say 'Post-Labor Economics' anyways?” on Nov 17, 2024

I think post-scarcity is not necessarily impossible, especially if we were to reshape the perspective a little bit to what is possible with true virtual reality. Also, perhaps this is too sci-fi future, but even if we don't get to ultimate virtual reality, I could see the potential to manipulate actual physical reality. Now, there still might be some things that are not entirely post-scarcity. The same applies to the idea of hyper-abundance.

Basically, I think post-labor economics is definitely the next step, but is it the ultimate last step? I think we would need to spend time thinking about both the true ultimate step (as best as we can imagine) and work our way backwards to see what actually gets us there.

But yeah, I pretty much inherently agree with most of the ideas of post-labor economics thinking.

I'll save my thoughts on the Economic Agency Paradox and Investment-Based Future until the transition article. (I did not end up getting into these. I think these are important principles but don’t seem to me to be the final version. I can’t directly put my finger on it, it’s more an intuition based on my own thoughts).

The article on emergence related to the history of philosophy is cool; I'll have to dig into this later.

Next, “The Solarpunk Future is Taking Shape” on Nov 20, 2024

I think this seems to highlight that technological advancements have the potential to shape so much more of reality.

Next, “Living that Post-Labor Lifestyle - Lessons and Insights” on Nov 21, 2024

November 24, 2024, 11:28 AM

I watched the video. It makes me think both how it doesn't really seem that much different from the standard lifestyle, yet how important those differences are.

I also think this underscores that, while we can strive to make our own lives ideal, the quality of the life we are able to live is significantly shaped by the broader environment and society around us.

Finally, “Getting from Here to There: A Post-Labor Odyssey” on Nov 24, 2024

November 24, 2024, 11:31 AM

Now that I've finally worked my way to the article I originally wanted to talk about, I've realized that this article isn't actually quite what I was thinking it was. It is more of a look specifically at some of the possible main principles that are likely to be involved in the transition, which is a great discussion. For some reason, I was thinking this was going to be a look at an actual set of possible transition timelines with a possibly more holistic look at the narratives, politics, philosophy, etc., that could shape and be "the force by which the world becomes the best place possible," as I like to say.

Perhaps David will get into this type of look at the transition, or perhaps he's already thought about it in the writing of his novel(s), which I am looking forward to reading when the audio version comes out.

Personally, I have thought quite a lot about how this transition could take place from our current reality to the best world possible (which I know is slightly different from just a post-labor economy).

I learned a lot through this. I'm sure I misinterpreted some points and my thoughts are probably mostly naïve. But I like to think that at least I am trying.

I appreciate your work on these topics.

- Philip

Expand full comment

love it, I'm going to use it as a reference going forward

Expand full comment

Great manifesto. My team at Common Planet call this new alternative system Creditism and it aligns perfectly with the vision you’ve outlined for a post-labor economy. Creditism delivers on these ideas by promoting a sustainable, cooperative framework that values mutual benefit and shared resources. I think you’d find it an exciting and complementary model, check it out at Common-Planet.org

Expand full comment

I appreciate that this framework emphasizes a decentralized economy that promotes community empowerment and economic agency. Community ownership can make a lot of sense.

However, I’m concerned that the framework is reductive in missing the elements that make life genuinely meaningful—such as love, spirituality, and culture. While community ownership can indeed support these values, other parts of the framework, such as the idea of ‘transforming citizens into consumers,’ verge on a dystopian view of society. Additionally, I see no reference to the U.S. Constitution as a foundation for balancing individual rights with collective responsibilities.

Engaging in regenerative economic work shows how, even with decentralization, focusing solely on economic metrics often falls short in building communities where people experience a true sense of belonging and purpose. I hope that aspects of this manifesto could be humbled and reconsidered.

Expand full comment

Love, spirituality, and culture are outside the purview of government. What economic regulations would you want to see? The government should not legislate these things. You know what it looks like when the government legislates love, spirituality and culture?

ISIS.

Expand full comment

I do not understand your basis for reducing my comments to be solely about government and then channeling that false presumption into a horrific comparison.

I take your framework seriously and am raising informed concerns about what it includes and what it does not. Your writing here is not just about the federal government; it's also about society as a whole, including our communities and roles as citizens. I support community ownership as a starting point, but communities are also about families, neighborhoods, schools, community centers, houses of worship, public squares, etc.

Public policy and public citizenship play impactful roles in these domains, as do our underlying values.

Expand full comment

Mike, I appreciate your thoughtful engagement with the framework and your commitment to holistic community wellbeing. Let me clarify an important distinction: Post-Labor Economics (PLE) is specifically focused on economic policy and market structures, much like how monetary policy focuses specifically on money supply and interest rates. This targeted scope is intentional and necessary.

The aspects you mention - love, spirituality, culture, and community belonging - are absolutely vital to human flourishing. However, they thrive best when they develop organically through voluntary civil society rather than through economic or government policy. History shows that when governments attempt to legislate or regulate these deeply personal aspects of life, it typically leads to unintended negative consequences and reduces individual liberty.

PLE actually creates more space for cultural and spiritual expression by increasing individual economic agency and time sovereignty. When people have greater economic security and more control over their time, they're better able to engage in community building, cultural activities, and spiritual pursuits of their choosing.

The framework's emphasis on subsidiarity and local decision-making specifically empowers communities to shape their economic environment in ways that align with their values, while respecting the diversity of beliefs and practices that make up our society.

What specific economic policies would you suggest to better support community wellbeing while maintaining clear boundaries between economic regulation and personal/cultural freedom?

Expand full comment

Couldn't agree more!

If I understand this manifesto right, it's still a competitive market based economy (I called it neoliberalism 2.0 in my other comment). And as such I'd like to support your comment with a piece by Sam Bowles:

"Markets not only allocate resources and distribute income; they also shape our culture, foster or thwart desirable forms of human development, and support a welldefined structure of power. Markets are as much political and cultural institutions as they are economic. For this reason, the standard efficiency analysis is insufficient to tell us when and where markets should allocate goods and services and where other institutions should be used. Even if market allocations did yield [economically efficient] results, and even if the resulting income distribution was thought to be fair (two very big “ifs”), the market would still fail if it supported an undemocratic structure of power or if it rewarded greed, opportunism, political passivity, and indifference toward others. The central idea here is that our evaluation of markets and with it the concept of market failure-must be expanded to include the effects of markets on both the structure of power and the process of human development .... As anthropologists have long stressed, how we regulate our exchanges and coordinate our disparate economic activities influences what kind of people we become. Markets may be considered to be social settings that foster specific types of personal development and penalize others. The beauty of the market, some would say, is precisely this: It works well even if people are indifferent toward one another. And it does not require complex communication or even trust among its participants. But that is also the problem. The economy—its markets, workplaces and other sites— is a gigantic school. Its rewards encourage the development of particular skills and attitudes while other potentials lay fallow or atrophy. We learn to function in these environments, and in so doing become someone we might not have become in a different setting. By economizing on valuable traits—feelings of solidarity with others, the ability to empathize, the capacity for complex communication and collective decision-making, for example—markets are said to cope with the scarcity of these worthy traits. But in the long run markets contribute to their erosion and even disappearance. What looks like a hardheaded adaptation to the infirmity of human nature may in fact be part of the problem."

Expand full comment

Fantastic article. I never knew the definition of neo-liberalism until now even though I've studied economic theory. There ya go.

Expand full comment

Thoughtful and motivating article, thank you!

However, II cannot resist describing this as neoliberalism 2.0 that builds on the same elite tactic of incremental positive change that gives the working class an illusion of a change while the economic injustice continues to exist. I'm curious what if you agree that we're in a feudal capitalism phase already.

I looking forward to a future piece on Parecon and the proposal made by Michael Albert.

Expand full comment

I find all of this very interesting but, what I still don't understand is how you or others woyld deal with preserving and AGI cleaning up and expanding the health of the biosphere. Is it that you really believe scientists will solve all of it and build a REGENERATIVE resourse economy?

Expand full comment

It's not that I think other extisting systems are better...

Expand full comment

I think it's a fantastic start to pave the road for a new societal paradigm or rather it's an ending.

Can you elaborate on the theoretical grounding of your assertions?

I guess systems theory has a lot to offer here. My brain otherwise is overloaded with figuring out what brought you to your conclusions.

Expand full comment

Thanks Ingo! You're absolutely right about systems theory being a key foundation here. My framework draws heavily from complex adaptive systems research, particularly concepts like emergence, feedback loops, and network effects.

The theoretical grounding comes from three main sources:

1. Historical pattern analysis: Looking at how economic systems have evolved from feudalism through industrial capitalism to neoliberalism, there's a clear pattern of power concentration followed by systemic instability. This maps perfectly to systems theory's concepts of attractor states and phase transitions.

2. Market efficiency theory: While neoliberalism correctly identified markets as powerful coordination mechanisms, it missed that information asymmetry and power concentration inevitably create market failures. My principles essentially extend Hayek's knowledge problem arguments to their logical conclusion - true market efficiency requires radical decentralization.

3. Network theory findings about resilience: Research into everything from ecosystems to power grids shows that decentralized networks with high local connectivity are more stable and adaptive than centralized ones. The principles I outlined are basically applying those network resilience findings to economic systems.

Would love to hear your thoughts on these theoretical foundations. Do you see other systems theory concepts that could strengthen or challenge this framework?

Expand full comment

TL;DR:

We should randomly simulate different economic approaches to find an adequate design, while optimizing for simplicity in the ruleset.

Hayek: he was skeptical of the idea that humans can rationally design complex social systems and I agree. He emphasized traditions as evolved rules to coordinate society. I think this times are gone. We have no time for traditions to naturally emerge. We should rather stress test our potential social structures by random simulation as proposed by Residuality theory.

Network Theory: Networks often exhibit emergent properties that are not predictable from the characteristics of individual nodes. Self-organization refers to the ability of a system to form structures and patterns without external guidance. so, fully agree.

other theories

1. Systems Theory

It might be valuable to explore how the transition between phases can be managed to minimize disruption, drawing on insights from systems theory about smooth phase transitions.

Characteristics of phase transitions include:

- Non-Linearity: Small changes in input can lead to disproportionately large effects on the system.

- Emergence: New properties or behaviors arise that are not predictable from the previous state.

- Critical Thresholds: The system reaches a point where existing structures become unsustainable, necessitating change.

- Attractor States: Systems tend to settle into stable patterns or behaviors, but external or internal pressures can push them into new attractor states.

Taking this into consideration the manifesto should promote a smooth transition to a more adaptable diverse system with quick feedback mechanisms.

And, simpler rules can indeed produce more adaptable and resilient systems.

2. Residuality theory

While derived from systems theory it puts another angle on the support of transparency as a means to create robust economic residues. By ensuring that information is freely available, the system can self-correct and adapt to changing conditions, thus fostering resilience. Automation thus becomes a key residue that ensures continuity and efficiency. By automating routine tasks, the system can shift human labor towards areas requiring adaptability and innovation, thus increasing the overall resilience of the economic system. While Risiduality theory holds interesting insights it‘s meant for static systems inside adaptive systems. We should change the theory incorporate self reference and feedback loops to be applicable to social systems.

Expand full comment

Regarding your TLDR summary, I agree completely 👍 With regards to point 7, Michael Hudson spoke about it multiple times. In short, democracy is what allows oligarchies to emerge and capture institutions and society; what is called in the west as autocratic regime etc in history was actually playing the role of the barrier for emergence of oligarchies. He also referred to debt resets as one of such mechanisms.

Expand full comment

This is a wonderfully written, very informative essay! I’m so happy to hear someone else talk about “information asymmetry “. You are definitely a true polymath, brother.

Expand full comment

Great article with many fantastic takeaways!

To limit myself to just two:

“Every job humans do from necessity rather than choice represents a failure of automation and a constraint on human potential.” 👏🏾👏🏾

Better, Faster, Cheaper, Safer. 💯

“…PLE (Post-Labor Economics) will increase GDP more than neoliberalism by unlocking massive trapped value in the economy.” 👏🏾👏🏾

This is *exactly* why I think UBI is *only* a precursor to UHI (Universal High Income).

Expand full comment

I don’t necessarily agree with everything here at the granular level, but overall, it seems very sensible and reasonable. This is definitely the time to make a new system, so we’ve got to find consensus on what that should look like. This is a great place to start.

Expand full comment

Attempted a question - where does sovereignty lie in a democracy; whether sovereign state is the only option; why not a decision not announced though felt as taken by five luminous, is automatically approved!

Expand full comment

#6 I realized I don't know what you mean by intermediaries if Substack and Patreon don't count. I might be missing something obvious.

Expand full comment

#4 discourages acquiring new information.

#6 makes value realization harder. It would be better to just promote stronger competition among intermediaries.

#8 forces utilitarianism.

Otherwise, I like your list.

Expand full comment

#4 - a lot of valuable information is already publicly funded by default.

#6 - not necessarily. look at my income, it's entirely decentralized with almost no intermediaries

#8 - that is a good thing

Expand full comment

#4 you're thinking of research. I'm thinking of market information.

#6 a lot of goods aren't consumed as easily as consumer content despite being extremely valuable. System integrators, for example, don't produce any goods, but large chunks of the market wouldn't function without them. There are also markets where scale is very limited without networks of intermediaries. For example, anything targeting SMBs or niche markets through whitelabeled products. You could say they provide services, but if service providers count as acceptable intermediaries, I don't think there are any unacceptable intermediaries.

Expand full comment

#4. Market information should be totally open... that's the whole point

#6. didn't say ban them. just allow direct connections whenever possible.

Expand full comment

#6 I know you didn't say to ban them. I shouldn't have used the word "unacceptable". For allowing direction, I'm guessing you're thinking of something blockchain-related. That's the only feasible way I can see to allow direct connections at scale.

#4 that goes back to discouraging acquiring new information. I'm strongly opposed, though secrecy around market information comes with obvious short-term problems. I'd again opt for promoting competition here, maybe even with the government. E.g., the government funds the publication of market information just as they do with academic information.

Expand full comment

Alan, let me clarify these points:

Re #4: I think we're using "market information" differently. I'm talking about transparency of market-relevant information - prices, terms, ownership, political influence, environmental impact - not trade secrets or R&D. Think SEC disclosure requirements. These don't discourage innovation; they prevent market manipulation through hidden information. The principle is about making markets more efficient by reducing information asymmetry that enables exploitation.

Re #6: You raise good points about valuable intermediaries, but that's not what I'm targeting. System integrators add real value by reducing complexity - they're not pure rent extractors. I'm talking about unnecessary intermediaries that only extract value without adding any. Maybe I should clarify the principle as "Minimize rent-extracting intermediaries" - every layer must justify its value-add against its extraction.

Re #8: The concern about "forcing utilitarianism" misses the mark. This is about preventing moral hazard - ensuring decision-makers can't externalize negative consequences while internalizing benefits. It's about responsibility, not utility maximization.

The key thing is these are directional preferences, not absolute prohibitions. "Minimize" doesn't mean "eliminate," and "align" doesn't mean "perfectly match." These principles are about systematically improving markets, not imposing rigid rules.

Expand full comment

That's a lot more clear. Thanks for the explanation. FWIW, I think all of these points are directionally good.

Expand full comment