72 TERMS OF COOPERATION AND THE DIFFERENCE PRINCIPLE - Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick

72 TERMS OF COOPERATION AND THE DIFFERENCE PRINCIPLE - Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick - idueprincipidirawls perchèsolounaspecificadiseguaglianza? ricchisemprepiùricchi unapropostaindecente lontanodalsentirecomune

TERMS OF COOPERATION AND THE DIFFERENCE PRINCIPLERead more at location 3797

Note: 72@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Edit

Rawls imagines rational, mutually disinterested individuals meeting in a certain situation,Read more at location 3799

Note: LA POSIZIONE ORIGINALE Edit

“the original position,”Read more at location 3800

Add a note

While making this choice, no one knows his place in society,Read more at location 3802

Add a note

The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance.Read more at location 3803

Add a note

Persons in the initial situation would choose two . . . principles: the first requires equality in the assignment of basic rights and duties, while the second holds that social and economic inequalities, for example, inequalities of wealth and authority are just only if they result in compensating benefits for everyone, and in particular for the least advantaged members of society.Read more at location 3808

Note: DUE PRINCIPI: UGUALI DIRITTI E MAXMIN Edit

we should question why individuals in the original position would choose a principle that focuses upon groups, rather than individuals.Read more at location 3823

Note: GRUPPI E INDIVIDUI Edit

why exclude the group of depressives or alcoholics or the representative paraplegic?Read more at location 3828

Note: PERCHÈ SOLO UNA SPECIFICA DISEGUAGLIANZA? Edit

is this a fair agreement on the basis of which those worse endowed could expect the willing cooperation of others?Read more at location 3868

Note: È UN ACCORDO PLAUSIBILE? Edit

the difference principle is not neutral between the better and the worse endowed.Read more at location 3870

Note: PERCHÈ UN DOTATO DOVREBBE FIRMARE? Edit

Perhaps the symmetry is upset if one asks how much each gains from the social cooperation.Read more at location 3871

Add a note

how much does each individual gain from general social cooperation, as compared, not with no cooperation, but with more limited cooperation?Read more at location 3874

Note: LE ALTERNATIVE AL CONTRATTO GENERALE Edit

we must try to imagine less extensive schemes of partitioned social cooperation in which the better endowed cooperate only among themselves and the worse endowed cooperate only among themselves,Read more at location 3879

Note: MIGLIORI COI MIGLIORI Edit

If the better-endowed group includes those who manage to accomplish something of great economic advantage to others, such as new inventions, new ideas about production or ways of doing things, skill at economic tasks, and so on,* it is difficult to avoid concluding that the less well endowed gain more than the better endowed do from the scheme of general cooperation.Read more at location 3887

Note: SISTEMI INNOVATIVI Edit

What follows from this conclusion? I do not mean to imply that the better endowed should get even more than they get under the entitlement system of general social cooperation.+ What does follow from the conclusion is a deep suspicion of imposing, in the name of fairness, constraints upon voluntaryRead more at location 3890

Note: RAWLS COMPATIBILE CON I RICCHI SEMPRE PIÙ RICCHI. RAWLS ANARCHICO Edit

“Look, worse endowed: you gain by cooperating with us. If you want our cooperation you’ll have to accept reasonable terms. We propose these terms: We’ll cooperate with you so long as we get as much as possible. That is, the terms of our cooperation should give us the maximal share such that, if it was tried to give us more, we’d end up with less.” If these terms seem outrageous, as they are, why don’t the terms proposed by those worse endowed seem the same?Read more at location 3898

Note: PROPOSTA INDECENTE DEI MIGLIORI Edit

neutral between his proposal and any other proposal, the conclusion that the difference principle presents a fair basis for cooperation cannot follow from what precedes it in this passage. Rawls is merely repeating that it seems reasonable; hardly a convincing reply to anyone to whom it doesn’t seem reasonable.Read more at location 3922

Note: LS NEUTRALITÀ FATTUALE DI RAWLS

10-14 The Hanson-Yudkowsky AI-Foom Debate by Robin Hanson, Eliezer Yudkowsky

10-14 The Hanson-Yudkowsky AI-Foom Debate by Robin Hanson, Eliezer Yudkowsky - eugeneticainformatica analogiavscausalità tretransizioni rivoluzioneindustrialeconnessionetrafficoni cumuloconoscienzenopensieroscientifico 

Chapter 10 AI Go FoomRead more at location 634

Note: Y: Ia sarà hand coded e concentrata Edit

Note: 10@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Edit

hand-coded AI will come soon and in the form of a single suddenly superpowerful AI.Read more at location 637

Note: L IPOTESI DI Y Edit

A machine intelligence can directly rewrite its entire source code and redesign its entire physical hardware. While human brains can in principle modify themselves arbitrarily, in practice our limited understanding of ourselves means we mainly only change ourselves by thinking new thoughts. All else equal this means that machine brains have an advantage in improving themselves.Read more at location 640

Note: LE MACCHINE SI RIPRODUCONO PIÙ EFFICACEMENTE? EUGENETICA INFORMATICA. Edit

“object” vs. “meta”Read more at location 674

Add a note

It seems as if you think object ones don’t increase growth rates while meta ones do.Read more at location 674

Add a note

Chapter 12 Eliezer’s Meta-level DeterminismRead more at location 816

Note: Il metodi alternativi: H: analogie con contesti simili e analisi dei precedenti E: conoscenza dei meccanismi specifici del campo oggetto Le 3 transizioni analoghe: uomo, agricoltura, industria Cause: nn tanto la conoscenza quanto la messa in rete delle singole conoscenze. E: l' agricoltura raccontata da un ottimizatore. H dà + peso al caso e quindi alle capacità combinatorie del sistema. E dà+ peso all' intelligenza e al progetto. Edit

Note: 12@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Edit

it seems the basis for Eliezer’s claim that my analysis is untrustworthy “surface analogies” vs. his reliable “deep causes” is that, while I use long-vetted general social science understandings of factors influencing innovation, he uses his own new untested meta-level determinism theory.Read more at location 826

Note: ANCORA ANALOGIA VS CAUSALITÀ Edit

The last three strong transitions were humans, farming, and industry, and in terms of growth rate changes these seem to be of similar magnitude. Eliezer seems to predict we will discover the first of these was much stronger than the other two. And while the key causes of these transitions have long been hotly disputed, with many theories in play, Eliezer seems to pick specific winners for these disputes: intergenerational culture, writing, and scientific thinking.Read more at location 866

Note: LE 3 TRANSIZIONI. IL SEGRETO DEL SUCCESSO UMANO Edit

Few could write and what they wrote didn’t help farming much. Farming seems more plausibly to have resulted from a scale effect in the accumulation of innovations in abilities to manage plants and animals—weRead more at location 871

Note: AGRICOLTURA E CUMULO DELLE CONOSCENZE. NO PENSIERO SCIENTIFICO Edit

Also for industry, the key innovation does not seem to have been a scientific way of thinking—that popped up periodically in many times and places, and by itself wasn’t particularly useful. My guess is that the key was the formation of networks of science-like specialists, which wasn’t possible until the previous economy had reached a critical scale and density.Read more at location 874

Note: INDUSTRIA: NETWORK DI TRAFFICONI E MASSA CRITICA DEL CAPITALE. NO PENSIERO SCIENTIFICO