2026-04-01
Principles should be symmetric
Disclaimer
- Quick Note
- Contains politically sensitive info
- Thinking aloud. I may not endorse these claims after a lot of thought/
Main
- trigger for this post - skimmed through kevin paulsen's book, including paulsen doxxing this other guy. saw the story of greenwald's sex tapes being released, and such mixed reactions for it across political spectrum.
- Realising I am still confused about moral values
- I still think democracy is for suckers. I believe long-term error correction for the truth. I don't believe as strongly in justice/fairness, or in equality, or in freedom for everyone.
- In a utopia, I'd support maximum freedom for everyone. We don't live in utopia.
- I seem to have a moral intuition that says principles should be symmetric:
- Either everyone gets privacy or no one gets it.
- I am strongly against the journalist nonsense that billionaires/politicians don't get privacy but the average person gets privacy.
- I am upset by how unpopular it is to empathise with billionaires and politicians. I realise I am rare in actually deeply caring about what happens to the upper class. It makes me want to cry.
- I am currently strongly leaning towards no one gets privacy, blow the whole world open. I think it is genuinely beyond people's imagination how fast society will iterate towards the truth if this happened. People's intuitions are miscalibrated IMO, they just genuinely don't care about the truth as much as they care about protecting their reputation in front of their family/friends.
- Either be violent against everyone or be violent against no one.
- I am currently leaning towards being violent against everyone, but I'm not very sure.
- I do think utopia would be non-violent, but until then, I cannot pre-commit to being a non-violent. Non-violence just seems fundamentally wrong to me at some level. Other people are violent and you should sometimes respond with violence in return.
- Either respect everyone's consent or respect no one's consent.
- I am honestly confused on this point. I generally lean towards respecting everyone's consent. But this position is in conflict with other positions of mine.
- Technological balance of power is atleast fair in some sense.
- It seems to be symmetric. It only cares about whether you're an individual or a small group or a big group.
- It does not care about whether you're socially left or right leaning (what is your position on sex/LGBTQ/abortion/family/etc etc). Socially-right leaning actors can attack socially-left actors and vice versa, atheists can attack muslims and muslims can attack atheists, it is symmetric on both sides.
- There is some weird sort of beauty in this. Nature does discriminate.
- I am hesitating working on this plan to only target pro-ASI billionaires. Part of me wants to target everyone symmetrically. Part of me wants to first get everyone's consent, before blowing open the whole world.
- I care about Sam Altman. I care about Elon Musk. I care about Demis Hassabis. I care about Shane Legg. I care about Demis Hassabis. I care about Marc Andreessen. Heck, I'd probably have cared about Nick Land too. I want all of them to have a good life. Doesn't matter if they're ignorant about ASI risk. Doesn't matter if they're actively okay with human extinction.
- I am still angry with public internet discourse for not acknowledging basic fact that billionaires and politicians deserve love too. I understand the incentives all too well. But, regardless of incentives. Not everything is about incentives. Won't someone just say the Truth?
- Lol it reminds me of that Canibus v Dizaster rap battle lyric. "Putting my dog to sleep." When I destroy Sam Altman's life, I feel like I am destroying the life of someone I care about, so they don't destroy my life first.
lmao is this some bizzare coincidence but uh, habryka tweeted this
- On thinking more, nothing I said above is in direct contradiction with my plan to cyberattack the AI companies. You can care about someone and destroy their life anyway, to prevent them from destroying your life first.
- I need to think less in terms of democracy and capitalism, and more in terms of natural law.
Subscribe
Enter email or phone number to subscribe. You will receive atmost one update per month.
Alternatively, you can subscribe via RSS, or a third-party service like blogtrottr
Comment
Enter comment