Hide table of contents

We, A Happier World, just uploaded a video on value lock-in, inspired by Will MacAskill's book What We Owe The Future! 

This is part of a whole series we're making on the book, full playlist here.

Thanks to Sarah Emminghaus for her help with the script!

Transcript

Sources are marked with an asterisk. Text might differ slightly in wording from the final video.

Hundred schools of thought

2600 years ago, China went through a long period of conflict that is now known as the Warring states era. But it also brought about a time with many philosophical and cultural experiments that is now known as the hundred schools of thought. That’s when Confucianism was born – the philosophy of Kong Fuzi who believed that self-improvement led to a spiritual transformation. Confucianism encouraged respect for your parents and obedience to authority, rulers and the state. The ethics depended on relationships between people rather than the actions themselves: A son beating their father is not okay, but the opposite is.**

There were a few other popular philosophies at the time; for example legalism. Legalists were strong proponents of heavy punishments for wrongdoings, a powerful military and a strong state, they believed people were selfish and needed heavy guidance.

Then there were the mohists – at the time, they were the confucianists’ main rival. Mohists believed that we should care about other people as much as we care about ourselves. And that we should take whatever actions benefited the most people. They proposed owning no luxury and consuming less.

The rivalism ended in 221 BC when the legalism-influenced Qin conquered China and took strong measures against all competing schools of thought – apparently legalism had won. That all changed when the dynasty ended just 15 years later and Confucianism turned out to be the new popular ideology.* Since then, all Chinese dynasties embraced Confucianism until the Qing dynasty ended in 1912. When Mao and the communist party started ruling China in 1949 it got suppressed, but it remained popular and it’s being revived today.

The popularity of Confucianism is a great example of value lock-in: a situation where one set of values wins against others and stays in place for a very long time.

Other examples include Christianity and Islam: The bible and the Quran are still the best-selling books today!

Risks of locking in current values

In general when we look at values from the past – be it 10, 50 or 200 years ago – it feels like we progressed towards the better. There’s no way we would want those “outdated” values to still persist. But what makes a lot of us so sure that our current values are good? They might be better in some ways, but just like we do now, people in the future will probably look at our current values and find a lot of them abhorrent. They will probably be glad we overcame those “outdated” values.

Right now a lot of pretty different worldviews are competing against each other – similar as in the time of the hundred schools of thought in China. No one school of thought has won – yet. 

Now what is interesting about this with regards to the long term future: How does a school of thought win against others? How do values get locked in? What values from today do we want to lock in – if any? Which ones are maybe already locked in even though they might not be what is best for humanity?

This video is part of a series based on Oxford philosopher Will MacAskill’s new book called What We Owe The Future. The book makes the case for caring about our longterm future and explores what we can do to have a positive impact on it. In a previous episode we told the story of Benjamin Lay, an inspiring abolitionist. In another one we argued why caring about our longterm future is important.

Will MacAskill mentions three ways values could get locked in in the future: If we set up a world government, through space colonisation, and through the development of powerful AI. The latter is perhaps the scariest. So far, Artificial Intelligence is narrow – meaning, machines only know how to perform narrow tasks, like beating us at chess. No AI can actually fully replicate human intelligence over all possible tasks. When AI exceeds human capabilities across all domains, and that might happen at some point sooner rather than later, there’s the massive risk values would be locked in that are not what is best for humanity. Perhaps by the AI somehow imposing them on us. 

This is already happening to some degree today through social media algorithms. 

We know this topic is incredibly broad and complex. We’re also not sure whether this really would happen. After all, it sounds a bit ridiculous. We will talk more about AI in our next video on existential threats, so subscribe and ring that notification bell to get notified when it comes out!

So how do we keep the wrong values from being locked in? 

In general: We should try to keep our minds as open as possible for as long as possible. As such, we should promote free speech and create a marketplace of ideas wherever possible. Whenever multiple schools of thought are encouraged, it gets less likely for one of them to win and be locked in.

One idea we like a lot is the idea of ideological charter cities: autonomous communities with their own laws that try out different ideas as an experiment – to see how well some theories translate into the real world without the specific policies being difficult to reverse. One real life example again happened in China not that long ago. In 1979 a special economic zone was created around the city of Shenzhen – with more liberal economic policies than in the rest of the country. The average yearly income there grew by a factor of two hundred over forty years, the experiment inspired broader reforms across the country. Since then, hundreds of millions of people in China have gotten out of poverty.

The idea of an ideological charter city could also be tried out by marxists, environmentalists or anarchists! That way we could see which ideas work best in the real world and learn something from it.

Another thing that can help is to have more open borders. If people are allowed to migrate more easily, people can vote with their feet which countries’ values they prefer.

Then there are values that are already helping us to get to morally better societies. Reason, reflection and empathy are probably among them. Engaging in good faith arguments, being open to other people’s viewpoints, empathising with people not in our inner circle – all those practices can help getting to an improved point of view and better morals.

There’s a paradox here: Making sure values don’t get locked in means locking in values like these. But this is a paradox we’re happy to live with.

Conclusion

If you thought this was interesting, you should definitely check out Will’s book. In the next episode we’ll be talking about the possible end of humanity. So don’t forget to subscribe!

Comments2


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Love this - love the set design, love that you've come on camera, great script and interesting topic! Everything is awesome! 

Curated and popular this week
Sam Anschell
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
*Disclaimer* I am writing this post in a personal capacity; the opinions I express are my own and do not represent my employer. I think that more people and orgs (especially nonprofits) should consider negotiating the cost of sizable expenses. In my experience, there is usually nothing to lose by respectfully asking to pay less, and doing so can sometimes save thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per hour. This is because negotiating doesn’t take very much time[1], savings can persist across multiple years, and counterparties can be surprisingly generous with discounts. Here are a few examples of expenses that may be negotiable: For organizations * Software or news subscriptions * Of 35 corporate software and news providers I’ve negotiated with, 30 have been willing to provide discounts. These discounts range from 10% to 80%, with an average of around 40%. * Leases * A friend was able to negotiate a 22% reduction in the price per square foot on a corporate lease and secured a couple months of free rent. This led to >$480,000 in savings for their nonprofit. Other negotiable parameters include: * Square footage counted towards rent costs * Lease length * A tenant improvement allowance * Certain physical goods (e.g., smart TVs) * Buying in bulk can be a great lever for negotiating smaller items like covid tests, and can reduce costs by 50% or more. * Event/retreat venues (both venue price and smaller items like food and AV) * Hotel blocks * A quick email with the rates of comparable but more affordable hotel blocks can often save ~10%. * Professional service contracts with large for-profit firms (e.g., IT contracts, office internet coverage) * Insurance premiums (though I am less confident that this is negotiable) For many products and services, a nonprofit can qualify for a discount simply by providing their IRS determination letter or getting verified on platforms like TechSoup. In my experience, most vendors and companies
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Forethought[1] is a new AI macrostrategy research group cofounded by Max Dalton, Will MacAskill, Tom Davidson, and Amrit Sidhu-Brar. We are trying to figure out how to navigate the (potentially rapid) transition to a world with superintelligent AI systems. We aim to tackle the most important questions we can find, unrestricted by the current Overton window. More details on our website. Why we exist We think that AGI might come soon (say, modal timelines to mostly-automated AI R&D in the next 2-8 years), and might significantly accelerate technological progress, leading to many different challenges. We don’t yet have a good understanding of what this change might look like or how to navigate it. Society is not prepared. Moreover, we want the world to not just avoid catastrophe: we want to reach a really great future. We think about what this might be like (incorporating moral uncertainty), and what we can do, now, to build towards a good future. Like all projects, this started out with a plethora of Google docs. We ran a series of seminars to explore the ideas further, and that cascaded into an organization. This area of work feels to us like the early days of EA: we’re exploring unusual, neglected ideas, and finding research progress surprisingly tractable. And while we start out with (literally) galaxy-brained schemes, they often ground out into fairly specific and concrete ideas about what should happen next. Of course, we’re bringing principles like scope sensitivity, impartiality, etc to our thinking, and we think that these issues urgently need more morally dedicated and thoughtful people working on them. Research Research agendas We are currently pursuing the following perspectives: * Preparing for the intelligence explosion: If AI drives explosive growth there will be an enormous number of challenges we have to face. In addition to misalignment risk and biorisk, this potentially includes: how to govern the development of new weapons of mass destr
jackva
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
 [Edits on March 10th for clarity, two sub-sections added] Watching what is happening in the world -- with lots of renegotiation of institutional norms within Western democracies and a parallel fracturing of the post-WW2 institutional order -- I do think we, as a community, should more seriously question our priors on the relative value of surgical/targeted and broad system-level interventions. Speaking somewhat roughly, with EA as a movement coming of age in an era where democratic institutions and the rule-based international order were not fundamentally questioned, it seems easy to underestimate how much the world is currently changing and how much riskier a world of stronger institutional and democratic backsliding and weakened international norms might be. Of course, working on these issues might be intractable and possibly there's nothing highly effective for EAs to do on the margin given much attention to these issues from society at large. So, I am not here to confidently state we should be working on these issues more. But I do think in a situation of more downside risk with regards to broad system-level changes and significantly more fluidity, it seems at least worth rigorously asking whether we should shift more attention to work that is less surgical (working on specific risks) and more systemic (working on institutional quality, indirect risk factors, etc.). While there have been many posts along those lines over the past months and there are of course some EA organizations working on these issues, it stil appears like a niche focus in the community and none of the major EA and EA-adjacent orgs (including the one I work for, though I am writing this in a personal capacity) seem to have taken it up as a serious focus and I worry it might be due to baked-in assumptions about the relative value of such work that are outdated in a time where the importance of systemic work has changed in the face of greater threat and fluidity. When the world seems to