A logo for the Casper consensus algorithm, Stable Diffusion via https://beta.dreamstudio.ai/
(this one took a brush and a few prompts, it's not quite good with text yet, but getting there!) https://t.co/dFWUHIHE2b

Casper 共识算法的标志，通过 https://beta.dreamstudio.ai/ 实现的稳定扩散
（这个拿了刷子和一些提示，它的文字还不是很好，但到达那里！）https://t.co/dFWUHIHE2b

@vgr @geoffreyirving @StefanFSchubert Low rate of change in circumstances is key. People do naturally select for alignment to some extent, but this gets completely broken if the issues change and everyone's thinking completely reshuffles every few years.

@vgr @geoffreyirving @StefanFSchubert 环境变化率低是关键。人们在某种程度上自然会选择对齐，但如果问题发生变化并且每个人的思维每隔几年就会完全重新洗牌，这就会完全被打破。

@vgr @geoffreyirving @StefanFSchubert Yeah that's fair, but I think even given stronger correlations between opinions, max agreement decreases as dimensionality increases seems both true and close to the argument you were actually making.

@vgr @geoffreyirving @StefanFSchubert 是的，这很公平，但我认为即使意见之间的相关性更强，随着维度的增加，最大一致性也会降低，这看起来既真实又接近你实际提出的论点。

@geoffreyirving @StefanFSchubert As the number of issues you care about approaches infinity, average max-agreement should asymptotically approach 50%.
I think this is the mathematical intuition behind what @vgr calls divergentism.

@geoffreyirving @StefanFSchubert 随着您关心的问题数量接近无穷大，平均最大一致性应渐近接近 50%。
我认为这就是@vgr 所说的发散主义背后的数学直觉。

@Noahpinion This looks like someone rediscovered some automated political ideology generator from 2003 and fed it with new source data.

@Noahpinion 这看起来像是有人从 2003 年重新发现了一些自动化的政治意识形态生成器，并为其提供了新的源数据。

@ByrneHobart Beliefs that are shared by >> 90% of people are generally not "important" to people. They're just an unquestioned and unconsidered part of the background environment.

@ByrneHobart 共享的信念

@NateSilver538 True though remember that the question asks you to think of a specific person, not use some axiom-of-choice-like "no idea who this person is but I can prove they exist" argument.
How many specific people are we reasonably familiar with the values of? I'd say under 100.

@NateSilver538 没错，但请记住，这个问题要求您考虑一个特定的人，而不是使用一些选择公理，例如“不知道这个人是谁，但我可以证明他们存在”的论点。
我们合理地熟悉了多少特定的人的价值观？我说100以内。

Think of the one person in the world who is the most ideologically aligned with you.
On what percentage of issues that are important to you do they share your view?

想想世界上与你意识形态最一致的人。
在对您很重要的问题中，他们与您的观点有多少相同？

@glenweyl That sounds like "it's okay for the process of creating individual works to be centralized, because the process of choosing which works to elevate, recommend, turn into cultural memes, etc is a highly distributed and social one"
Which is... basically my take on the question!

@glenweyl 这听起来像是“集中创作个人作品的过程是可以的，因为选择提升、推荐、转化为文化模因等作品的过程是一个高度分散和社会化的过程”
这是...基本上我对这个问题的看法！

@glenweyl I think what I'm ultimately asking is (i) do you agree that there's some difference between novel-writing and running a country that makes greater degrees of centralization more appropriate to the former, and (ii) how you would articulate what the difference is

@glenweyl 我想我最终要问的是（i）你是否同意小说写作和管理一个国家之间存在一些差异，这使得更大程度的集权更适合前者，以及（ii）你将如何表达不同的是

@glenweyl Fair! Maybe "having ongoing authority over a country's legal code" would be a better way to phrase it.

@glenweyl 公平！也许“对一个国家的法律法规拥有持续的权威”是一种更好的表述方式。

@glenweyl That exact same approach that works for novels would fail if you task it with, say, crafting a legal code.

@glenweyl 如果您将其用于编写法律代码的任务，那么适用于小说的完全相同的方法将失败。

@glenweyl I think to me the important idea is that it's the mind of a single person (as opposed to a vote or whatever) as the algorithm that performs the final step of bringing together all those inputs into a coherent work.

@glenweyl 我认为对我来说重要的想法是，它是一个人的思想（而不是投票或其他），作为执行将所有这些输入整合到一个连贯工作中的最后一步的算法。

@glenweyl I am curious, would you disagree with the idea that monarchy is the best way to write creative works of fiction (eg. novels)?

@glenweyl 我很好奇，您是否不同意君主制是写小说（例如小说）创意作品的最佳方式的想法？

@glenweyl @rushkoff I've never understood the "build a bunker to escape the apocalypse" mentality. I'm not afraid of nuclear war killing *me*, I'm afraid of nuclear war killing the guy who's going to invent the life extension breakthroughs that will save my life a century from now.

@glenweyl @rushkoff 我从来没有理解过“建造一个掩体以逃避世界末日”的心态。我不怕核战争杀死*我*，我害怕核战争杀死那个将发明延长寿命突破的人，这将在一个世纪后挽救我的生命。

@sasuke___420 @bengrossbg But limits don't determine the actual value of the function at that point. That would be pre-assuming that all functions are everywhere continuous.

@sasuke___420 @bengrossbg 但是限制并不能确定函数在该点的实际值。那将是预先假设所有函数在任何地方都是连续的。

@vgr Ironically enough when I watched Star Trek as a kid, every time the Prime Directive came up I was strongly anti it.

@vgr 具有讽刺意味的是，当我小时候看《星际迷航》时，每次最高指令出现时，我都强烈反对。

@vgr What if I have examined speed > survival values?

@vgr 如果我检查了速度怎么办

@vgr Isn't the whole point of the prequel series that the Jedi kinda had it coming because they were an overly moralistic entitled and sclerotic dead player?
If you want defenses of bureaucracy, Star Trek seems like better territory.

@vgr 绝地武士的前传系列的重点不是因为他们是一个过于道德化的标题和僵化的死者吗？
如果你想防御官僚主义，星际迷航似乎是更好的领域。

RT: 20 days until we see each other in Bogotá 🇨🇴
Check out our Bogotá City Guide for more info as you prepare your trip!
https://devcon.org/bogota https://t.co/sNShPBqr1c

RT：距离我们在波哥大见面还有 20 天 🇨🇴
准备旅行时，请查看我们的波哥大城市指南以获取更多信息！
https://devcon.org/bogota https://t.co/sNShPBqr1c