Venkatesh Rao ☀️ pfp
Venkatesh Rao ☀️
@vgr
I realized what bothers me about @vitalik.eth d/acc essay. Even though it is optimistic, it shares with the pessimist side a presumption that technology, as an evolutionary process, *can* be governed according to some notion of human intent. “Tech can/cannot be governed” is a bigger divide than optimism/pessimism
10 replies
20 recasts
67 reactions
Vitalik Buterin pfp
Vitalik Buterin
@vitalik.eth
I agree that's an important divide! I'm curious how it would translate into practice. For example, in a hypothetical earth where corporate lobbies successfully convinced everyone that climate change is actually good, do you agree that solar power tech would be decades behind where it is on our earth? Why or why not?
1 reply
0 recast
6 reactions
Venkatesh Rao ☀️ pfp
Venkatesh Rao ☀️
@vgr
I suspect this is in fact approximately the world we actually live in and renewables are in fact at least a decade behind because fossil fuel industry convinced enough people climate change was not a threat/not real. BP and Shell sat on it for decades.
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Venkatesh Rao ☀️ pfp
Venkatesh Rao ☀️
@vgr
But point is, at some point the economics of solar grew compelling enough to escape that attempt to stop it. So exhibit A in governability being impossible in the long term
2 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
Vitalik Buterin pfp
Vitalik Buterin
@vitalik.eth
True but even a 10-year delta in when tech becomes available is still a big deal! eg. imagine if internet privacy tech was reliably 10 years ahead of where it has been in practice, but internet surveillance tech was not comparably accelerated. (or vice versa)
2 replies
0 recast
4 reactions
Venkatesh Rao ☀️ pfp
Venkatesh Rao ☀️
@vgr
These scenarios are interesting but I don’t think they can be “chosen” in any meaningful way. The path dependent forking is almost entirely driven by available tech options. What eventually broke Solar stranglehold by big oil was Moore’s law driving pv cell costs down enough with old fabs, not governance…
2 replies
0 recast
4 reactions
Venkatesh Rao ☀️ pfp
Venkatesh Rao ☀️
@vgr
… ie sometimes our side (and you and I are always the good guys of course) gets relative acceleration advantage, sometimes the other side does. It’s largely random tech optionality cards being dealt. Surveillance tech: largely random race between cryptography tech and CCD camera tech
3 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
timbeiko.eth pfp
timbeiko.eth
@tim
If that's true, then doesn't it imply you should try _harder_ to skew the race in your direction? f you can find an under-developed niche, then shouldn't you exploit it? The above somewhat reads like EMH. An average trader not beating the market doesn't imply all prices are rational.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Venkatesh Rao ☀️ pfp
Venkatesh Rao ☀️
@vgr
Yes, but I wouldn’t call that “governance” That’s Darwinian competition I kinda define governance as the opposite of that. “Let’s all deliberate and decide what’s best for all of us like civilized beings, not compete like animals”
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Matt pfp
Matt
@zkmattwyatt
It sounds like you’re describing two sides of the same coin? In a shareholder capitalist system — if you can “get those random cards” that let you accelerate faster down the good path, then it’s EMH. But if you don’t get those random cards, then governance is backstop to make sure we stay on good path?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction