One Twitter comment, three and a half hours and one delayed lunch later, here is a full length response to a total stranger's blog post that I did not expect to read today... Thank you for this enlightening opportunity.
# Videogames
To start, I want to make some discussion of the justification for banning videogames in the way that the CCP has.
So, is it a good idea to ban videogames for children? No, not categorically, but that might not be exactly what's happening. There are both pros and cons to videogames. As you stated it, the pros are problem-solving, creativity, it's isolation from the real word, motivation, quality of life/entertainment value and more. The obvious downside is becoming addicted to something that distracts from the real-world and take the place of activities that society otherwise values.
There are other downsides too. From sex, violence and gambling, it's easy to see how one might think that videogames can be a bad influence on children. For violence at least, this is somewhat of a straw-man argument because studies have found that correlation between exposure to violence in videogames and violent action is small or non-existent.
I think that the easiest way to interpret the actions of the CCP is that they have a problem with children being addicted to videogames, and that's causing other social ails like withdraw from society, disobedience and lack of productivity (among other equally concerning, but potentially less GDP-influencing problems like depression and loneliness).
Practically, the CCP is saying "videogames are causing problems, so let's get rid of them," but I think this is part of a larger philosophy of the CCP to "play ball". If there's a problem with the videogame industry, it's the videogame industry's problem to figure out. The CCP is not opposed to working with individual companies who propose solutions, and this is an opportunity for an individual company to swoop in and provide videogames that aren't as addictive. In America, we're seeing similar things, but enforcement is by the parents, and not the party. Many publishers are releasing games that are less addictive to children, and the strict parents are only allowing access to this smaller set of videogames.
The CCP is just taking the all-or nothing approach. As you said, collectivist cultures are proclive to this form of stasis and rapid change. Instead of happening on a societal level, the change here will happen on an industrial level. The CCP is enforcing social will, and the industry needs to radically transform if they want to engage with the market of the game-playing youth. I think that's what's going to happen.
What seems certain is that China will get to a world with videogames that are less addictive sooner than it would if the CCP hadn't enacted this policy. So the question is, is the CCP stepping on it's own foot in the process by also diminishing access to all the benefits that videogames provide? I'm not sure. I think videogames and social media have gotten pretty bad addictive, and there are other ways to get many of the benefits that videogames provide. If someone comes along with a solution, and China returns with less-addictive videogames in the few years that it takes to develop them, then maybe this will be a good policy.
Or maybe, it will swiftly recognize that reverse the ban for "good" non-addictive videogames. For example, I have a cooperative puzzle game that I play with my friend. It's much harder to argue that this game is a negative influence, and I could certainly see the CCP allowing children to play a game like this. Even now, the ban only affects online games, which is a sign that the CCP recognizes that not all videogames are the enemy.
# Superintelligence
Now, relating this back to your articles main point, which seems not to be whether banning videogames is positive or negative, but is instead the question of how we ensure the super-intelligent organizations are doing things that are in our interest. How do we even determine what is in our interest? I think you make it clear that we need other super-intelligences to help make these decisions for us, so the question becomes "how do we construct super-intelligent organizations and systems that will fight for our collective interests."
Whether or not we know it, I actually think there is already plenty of research being done in this area, and what's needed most of all is synthesizing the data and standardizing the language with which we talk about the problem. Once concept that you seem likely to be familiar with would be the application of the theory of natural selection to academic research papers, but there are also relevant resources that describe how to build organizations, and there is other relevant research that describes emergent intelligence.
One of the most interesting parts of this article for me is the realization and emphasis of the idea that intelligence is composable - that two or more smaller intelligences can make up a larger one. Independent forces acting on their own can add up to a system with its own "motivations". Just to make the connection explicit on the other side, we are all just collections of collections of molecules bouncing around with some vague biased behaviors that lead to replication, organization and then intelligence.
With this context, it's not unreasonable to believe in super-intelligence as an emergent phenomenon that can arise from any system of interacting intelligences, whether that interaction is humans commenting on each others blog posts or specifically coming together to form a nation. There are certainly additional points to be made about AI, the composability of super-intelligences, interaction between the "layers of intelligence" (ie molecules with cells or humans with companies), and the systems with which the intelligences interact.
The main work that needs to be done here is to unify the language that describes emergent intelligence, systemic incentives (like that of capitalism), organization-building and potentially other fields. Doing that will allow us to have a more productive discussion on how we can actually go about orchestrating super-intelligences that will go about our interests
"However, I refuse to do so because (1) of course I don’t actually think I am wrong" - unironically my favourite part of this post.
right alongside: "I just don’t want to live in a world where an authoritarian anti-fun policy like this has demonstrably positive short-term and long-term effects on youth health and educational outcomes."
The worldview you articulate at the end seems to potentially be where social democratic and progressive movements are headed. It would make sense: they are political orientations that view emergent systems (mostly governments, but not only) as able to bend to popular will and ethical struggle. Hence why protest movements are more generally celebrated in these political orientations and those actions seen as some of the most noble acts an individual can participate in (ritual, sacrifice, etc.). These orientations seem to have embraced the paradox. Maybe we'll be surprised at the strength of center-left and left political movements in the near future?
One Twitter comment, three and a half hours and one delayed lunch later, here is a full length response to a total stranger's blog post that I did not expect to read today... Thank you for this enlightening opportunity.
# Videogames
To start, I want to make some discussion of the justification for banning videogames in the way that the CCP has.
So, is it a good idea to ban videogames for children? No, not categorically, but that might not be exactly what's happening. There are both pros and cons to videogames. As you stated it, the pros are problem-solving, creativity, it's isolation from the real word, motivation, quality of life/entertainment value and more. The obvious downside is becoming addicted to something that distracts from the real-world and take the place of activities that society otherwise values.
There are other downsides too. From sex, violence and gambling, it's easy to see how one might think that videogames can be a bad influence on children. For violence at least, this is somewhat of a straw-man argument because studies have found that correlation between exposure to violence in videogames and violent action is small or non-existent.
I think that the easiest way to interpret the actions of the CCP is that they have a problem with children being addicted to videogames, and that's causing other social ails like withdraw from society, disobedience and lack of productivity (among other equally concerning, but potentially less GDP-influencing problems like depression and loneliness).
Practically, the CCP is saying "videogames are causing problems, so let's get rid of them," but I think this is part of a larger philosophy of the CCP to "play ball". If there's a problem with the videogame industry, it's the videogame industry's problem to figure out. The CCP is not opposed to working with individual companies who propose solutions, and this is an opportunity for an individual company to swoop in and provide videogames that aren't as addictive. In America, we're seeing similar things, but enforcement is by the parents, and not the party. Many publishers are releasing games that are less addictive to children, and the strict parents are only allowing access to this smaller set of videogames.
The CCP is just taking the all-or nothing approach. As you said, collectivist cultures are proclive to this form of stasis and rapid change. Instead of happening on a societal level, the change here will happen on an industrial level. The CCP is enforcing social will, and the industry needs to radically transform if they want to engage with the market of the game-playing youth. I think that's what's going to happen.
What seems certain is that China will get to a world with videogames that are less addictive sooner than it would if the CCP hadn't enacted this policy. So the question is, is the CCP stepping on it's own foot in the process by also diminishing access to all the benefits that videogames provide? I'm not sure. I think videogames and social media have gotten pretty bad addictive, and there are other ways to get many of the benefits that videogames provide. If someone comes along with a solution, and China returns with less-addictive videogames in the few years that it takes to develop them, then maybe this will be a good policy.
Or maybe, it will swiftly recognize that reverse the ban for "good" non-addictive videogames. For example, I have a cooperative puzzle game that I play with my friend. It's much harder to argue that this game is a negative influence, and I could certainly see the CCP allowing children to play a game like this. Even now, the ban only affects online games, which is a sign that the CCP recognizes that not all videogames are the enemy.
# Superintelligence
Now, relating this back to your articles main point, which seems not to be whether banning videogames is positive or negative, but is instead the question of how we ensure the super-intelligent organizations are doing things that are in our interest. How do we even determine what is in our interest? I think you make it clear that we need other super-intelligences to help make these decisions for us, so the question becomes "how do we construct super-intelligent organizations and systems that will fight for our collective interests."
Whether or not we know it, I actually think there is already plenty of research being done in this area, and what's needed most of all is synthesizing the data and standardizing the language with which we talk about the problem. Once concept that you seem likely to be familiar with would be the application of the theory of natural selection to academic research papers, but there are also relevant resources that describe how to build organizations, and there is other relevant research that describes emergent intelligence.
One of the most interesting parts of this article for me is the realization and emphasis of the idea that intelligence is composable - that two or more smaller intelligences can make up a larger one. Independent forces acting on their own can add up to a system with its own "motivations". Just to make the connection explicit on the other side, we are all just collections of collections of molecules bouncing around with some vague biased behaviors that lead to replication, organization and then intelligence.
With this context, it's not unreasonable to believe in super-intelligence as an emergent phenomenon that can arise from any system of interacting intelligences, whether that interaction is humans commenting on each others blog posts or specifically coming together to form a nation. There are certainly additional points to be made about AI, the composability of super-intelligences, interaction between the "layers of intelligence" (ie molecules with cells or humans with companies), and the systems with which the intelligences interact.
The main work that needs to be done here is to unify the language that describes emergent intelligence, systemic incentives (like that of capitalism), organization-building and potentially other fields. Doing that will allow us to have a more productive discussion on how we can actually go about orchestrating super-intelligences that will go about our interests
"However, I refuse to do so because (1) of course I don’t actually think I am wrong" - unironically my favourite part of this post.
right alongside: "I just don’t want to live in a world where an authoritarian anti-fun policy like this has demonstrably positive short-term and long-term effects on youth health and educational outcomes."
The worldview you articulate at the end seems to potentially be where social democratic and progressive movements are headed. It would make sense: they are political orientations that view emergent systems (mostly governments, but not only) as able to bend to popular will and ethical struggle. Hence why protest movements are more generally celebrated in these political orientations and those actions seen as some of the most noble acts an individual can participate in (ritual, sacrifice, etc.). These orientations seem to have embraced the paradox. Maybe we'll be surprised at the strength of center-left and left political movements in the near future?
yes you can refer to minecraft apk at https://modilimitado.io/minecraft-apk here they have the best versions for android