I always get a justification of the elitist exploitation vibe from these kinds of writings. "We can't do anything about it, it's just prisoner's dilemmas all the way down. Move along, nothing to see here".
Uhm, no: The piece claims we are subjected to inhumane incentives set by competition for resources (rather than by corrupted individuals and groups who have become too cozy in their armchairs). It claims that only centralized control by an “unincentivized incentivizer” can prevent Molochian systems from sliding into degenerate chaos, without really specifying what that is.
I think the idea that a centralized solution will bring us Eden is not only naive, but it is also exactly playing into the hands of the centralized elite because it does not question them. Distracting from the blame of the elites is a convenient sleight of hand. The notion that efforts must be strengthened to establish a centralized control deprives us of means of getting rid of corruption by threats of forced replacement.
It specifies exactly what the solution is: bringing about the singularity in a deliberate fashion that ensures the resulting superhuman AI is on our side. I’m short, we need to create a loving god.
I don’t know if I find this to be a sane suggestion, but it doesn’t seem to resemble what you’re saying.
Yeah, it is some kind of god, which is a completely far fetched, utopist, naive and futurist idea. We already know how to deal with the problem of corrupt leadership: Burn it down and replace it. It is suspicious that this is not considered here.
I agree in part, it seems more apparent however that this cursory and throw away philosophy is the trend in modern intellectualism; the idea that in two lines one can convey a sense of authority, provide an accurate and irrefuteable conclusion, and then solve for x.
It is unfairly simplistic, to give people their own soundbites and bolster their already established opinions, when carefully approaching any one of the things listed would properly require an entire volume and much study.