Zompist Bboard Again

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Apr 26, 2022 10:22 am Re: Moore's Law, I'm pretty sure I remember a different discussion, in the last year of the old ZBB, where zompist linked to this blog post by Rodney Brooks:

https://rodneybrooks.com/the-end-of-moores-law/

Yes, but you have to read Brooks carefully. The title is "The End of Moore's Law" and he does say it's "over". But he's a technologist, halfway living in the future, so when he says "it's over" he means "it will be over in a few years." If you're taking even a medium-term view, the takeaway is that speed and size improvements can't go on forever. It doesn't mean "no progress will occur from 2017 to 2022."

He talks about the physical problems of making components smaller than 10 nm, the size that was just coming out as he wrote. We now have 5 nm devices. But it turns out that these measurements are a lie. (See the response from Heikki Kultala.) New ways of packing transistors in were developed— the technical names are FinFET and GAAFET, and I don't really understand them. But it's something of a lateral move: these techs allow higher chip density without really making the chips smaller.

The real measurement to look at is transistors per mm², and these numbers look something like this:

2017: 52m
2018: 91.2m (million)
2020: 96m to 173m
2021: 333m (announced)

This Forbes article suggests that the improvements in cost and speed are actually rather small.

Brooks did foresee, and other articles bear him out, that recent improvements in efficiency are largely due to packing in extra CPUs (multicores) and parallel processing. Each "computer" is only a bit faster, but now your desktop or laptop has multiple computers in it. This is great for problems that can be divided up into little pieces— as it happens, computer graphics and AI are precisely that sort of problem.

As a fun aside, here is the first FIFA game released on Playstation 1, and here is the last FIFA game released on the same platform, nine years later. The performance didn't improve, only the tools and techniques programmers had developed for working on the machine. Working with different cores also requires some effort, and will improve over time. So even if your multi core PC doesn't seem that fast now, it might feel faster in a few years.

Thank you, really informative!

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Tue Apr 26, 2022 6:30 pm As a fun aside, here is the first FIFA game released on Playstation 1, and here is the last FIFA game released on the same platform, nine years later. The performance didn't improve, only the tools and techniques programmers had developed for working on the machine. Working with different cores also requires some effort, and will improve over time. So even if your multi core PC doesn't seem that fast now, it might feel faster in a few years.

What modern demos can do with 80's home computer hardware can be really impressive - it's hard to imagine all the things one can make a C64 do, for instance.

Getting back to the original topic, I'm in a very pessimistic mood right now, so aside from the general question of whether humanity will survive until 2301, there are five things where I'd say it's arguably doubtful that they'll still be around to any serious amount in 2301, if current trends continue. As it happens, I myself value all five of these very highly:

1) serious democratic elections. Now, I'm not naive enough to believe in "government of the people, by the people, for the people", but I think that there are some significant differences between systems of government where politicians have to seriously worry about losing votes or losing elections, and systems of government where they don't have to worry about that, and that the former are better than the letter. And it looks like the general trend is towards the latter and away from the former.

2) reasonably high amounts of free speech. Now, again, I'm not naive enough to believe that there has ever been completely free speech anywhere at any time, or even that that would be a good thing, but again, some times and places have more of it than others, and it looks like we're moving towards less of it.

3) open scientific research and debate. Related to the previous item.

4) acceptance of sexual minorities and other misfits. A fairly new thing, not really a full reality anywhere yet, and on a global scale, things seem to be moving in the opposite direction.

5) humanitarianism, and specifically, the idea that in principle, atrocities are bad no matter who commits them. Again, forces that, in the one or other way, think that only the other side's atrocities are bad, seem to be globally in the ascendancy.

My reasons for worry are that

a) all five of these things are at least somewhat associated with "the West", and "the West" appears to be on the way down, and

b) they aren't even really associated with "the West" as a whole, but only with specific factions and tendencies within "the West", and those factions and tendencies appear to be on the way out in "the West".

And once we get a Brave New World of global repression, I don't see how it would ever change into anything better - any change would have to start somewhere, and as soon as authoritarianism starts to crumble somewhere, the authoritarian forces, smart enough to see the threat to their power, will move in and, from their perspective, "stabilize" things.

If you're talking about 2031, I absolutely have the same worries.

About 2301, however, this is precisely the sort of thing that's hard to predict. I'd suggest though that looking around at various other dates would give wildly different conclusions:

1780: the world is run by absolute monarchs, always has been, always will be
1910: the world is run by a small number of imperial, mercantile republics and always will be
1935: freedom and capitalism are a minority taste, and fascism and communism are taking over
1970: the world is run by social democrats, communism isn't looking good and fascism is a defeated joke

Some of these things become more predictable when you take into account the phenomenon of backlash. E.g. in the US, Rooseveltian liberalism dominated for half a century, but was knocked down by a surprisingly resurgent conservatism. But if you think "the right always wins", look at the revolutions and world wars from 1776 to 1949. Reactionary regimes are fragile and tend to blow themselves up relatively quickly. (Which may be of little consolation to those caught in the explosion.)

Raphael:

More likely our definitions of these things will change. By the Founding Father’s standards, the USA is a hellscape of despotism. Income tax and meat inspections would cause them to collapse onto their decorative couches. But we don’t see these things as making us less free. Some of these restrictions, like hate speech laws or pollution regulations, make us more free to enjoy our lives without fear. Banning Nazis, it turns out, makes the “free marketplace of ideas” more functional for everyone. So it’s possible that our notion of what freedom looks like might not fit the future, but the people in the future might see us as naive Classical Liberals for not appreciating their vision of a free life.

The thing about acceptance of sexual minorities is baffling. I cannot understand why you would think that, unless you are just tracking the Overton window without realizing it. In the US, we are having bitter battles over issues that would be easy conservative victories ten years ago. We’re not arguing about gay marriage anymore, because it’s a fait accompli. Anti-gay sentiment never went away, of course, and you see it bubble to the surface in various countries, including this one, from time to time. And these events look like “moving backward,” but really life is no less safe in the Netherlands, and no more hellish in Iran, than it was in the recent past.

As for progressive ideas being hallmarks of a West in decline, this feels very “Lost Cause-y” to me. If you spend any time in non-Western countries, you’ll see their core values differ from ours about as much as they differ in their relationship with gravity. Most of the humanitarian successes in the West that we pat ourselves on the back about are post-War or later, hardly inherent features of our culture.

Take for instance women’s suffrage in Britain. During some of the nastiest fighting in WWI, Britain gave women over 30 the right to vote. This made them the most advanced large, stable state (i.e. I’m excluding Kerensky’s provisional government and places like Latvia) to grant such rights to women. In that moment, a smarmy British person might think “We’d better win this war! If some other power takes over our role as global hegemon, it will majorly set back women’s suffrage.” But within three years every good candidate for future superpower had granted full voting rights to women. There was nothing about being German or American that prevented women’s suffrage in those places. We’re sitting on seven years of full legal gay marriage in the US, five in Germany, eight in Britain, and clicking our tongues about how it’s the end of gay rights if the Hun take over. Give me a break.

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 6:11 pm If you're talking about 2031, I absolutely have the same worries.

About 2301, however, this is precisely the sort of thing that's hard to predict. I'd suggest though that looking around at various other dates would give wildly different conclusions:

1780: the world is run by absolute monarchs, always has been, always will be
1910: the world is run by a small number of imperial, mercantile republics and always will be
1935: freedom and capitalism are a minority taste, and fascism and communism are taking over
1970: the world is run by social democrats, communism isn't looking good and fascism is a defeated joke

Some of these things become more predictable when you take into account the phenomenon of backlash. E.g. in the US, Rooseveltian liberalism dominated for half a century, but was knocked down by a surprisingly resurgent conservatism. But if you think "the right always wins", look at the revolutions and world wars from 1776 to 1949.

Thing is, the world is more interconnected today than it was in those days, and if we get a truly globalized dictators' alliance, things might end up working the way that, if it looks like there might be a revolution somewhere, the alliance will sweep in and shore up the local tinpot guy.

(BTW, I'm a bit curious why you chose 1949 as the end of an era above.)

Reactionary regimes are fragile and tend to blow themselves up relatively quickly. (Which may be of little consolation to those caught in the explosion.)

I wish I could share this optimism. I don't see any of the world's current reactionary regimes collapsing any time soon. Sure, some did over the past 20 years, but the others have learned their lessons from that.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 7:47 pm Raphael:

More likely our definitions of these things will change. By the Founding Father’s standards, the USA is a hellscape of despotism. Income tax and meat inspections would cause them to collapse onto their decorative couches.

Jeffersonians, yes. I'm less sure about Federalists. (Then again, the Federalists would faint over near-universal suffrage.)

But we don’t see these things as making us less free. Some of these restrictions, like hate speech laws or pollution regulations, make us more free to enjoy our lives without fear. Banning Nazis, it turns out, makes the “free marketplace of ideas” more functional for everyone. So it’s possible that our notion of what freedom looks like might not fit the future, but the people in the future might see us as naive Classical Liberals for not appreciating their vision of a free life.

You might have misunderstood me. I'm not worried that our precious bodily fluids might be destroyed because of left-wing advances. I'm worried that certain good things might disappear because of right-wing advances. For instance, when it comes to banning Nazis, keep in mind that I'm from a country that has already banned them for my whole life, and I don't mind that. I'm more worried about the world being taken over by the kind of governments that would ban non-nazis.

The thing about acceptance of sexual minorities is baffling. I cannot understand why you would think that, unless you are just tracking the Overton window without realizing it. In the US, we are having bitter battles over issues that would be easy conservative victories ten years ago. We’re not arguing about gay marriage anymore, because it’s a fait accompli. Anti-gay sentiment never went away, of course, and you see it bubble to the surface in various countries, including this one, from time to time. And these events look like “moving backward,” but really life is no less safe in the Netherlands, and no more hellish in Iran, than it was in the recent past.

In Russia and Hungary, things seem to be worse on that front than 20 years ago, with bans on "gay propaganda" that had previously been legal.

As for progressive ideas being hallmarks of a West in decline, this feels very “Lost Cause-y” to me. If you spend any time in non-Western countries, you’ll see their core values differ from ours about as much as they differ in their relationship with gravity. Most of the humanitarian successes in the West that we pat ourselves on the back about are post-War or later, hardly inherent features of our culture.

I didn't say that any of this stuff is an "inherent feature" or a "hallmark" of the West. See this paragraph in my post:

Raphael wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 9:49 am b) they aren't even really associated with "the West" as a whole, but only with specific factions and tendencies within "the West", and those factions and tendencies appear to be on the way out in "the West".

I do, however, have my doubts that people everywhere have the same core values. That's not even the case within the same group of cultures, or even within different parts of the population of one culture.

Take for instance women’s suffrage in Britain. During some of the nastiest fighting in WWI, Britain gave women over 30 the right to vote. This made them the most advanced large, stable state (i.e. I’m excluding Kerensky’s provisional government and places like Latvia) to grant such rights to women. In that moment, a smarmy British person might think “We’d better win this war! If some other power takes over our role as global hegemon, it will majorly set back women’s suffrage.” But within three years every good candidate for future superpower had granted full voting rights to women. There was nothing about being German or American that prevented women’s suffrage in those places.

Let's just say that I strongly doubt that LGBTQ+ rights will sweep the parts of the world they haven't reached yet with the same speed with which women's suffrage swept the world in the first half of the 20th century.

(And I doubt that Wilhelmine Germany would have introduced women's suffrage if it had won World War I, too.)

Raphael wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 3:03 am Thing is, the world is more interconnected today than it was in those days, and if we get a truly globalized dictators' alliance, things might end up working the way that, if it looks like there might be a revolution somewhere, the alliance will sweep in and shore up the local tinpot guy.

As I understand it, this was roughly the idea of the Warsaw Pact. This strategy worked quite well, until it didn’t. (Though I’m not qualified to explain why it fell apart.)

Raphael wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 3:03 am Thing is, the world is more interconnected today than it was in those days, and if we get a truly globalized dictators' alliance, things might end up working the way that, if it looks like there might be a revolution somewhere, the alliance will sweep in and shore up the local tinpot guy.

Great powers don't really like each other. If it weren't for the US, would Putin and Xi be buddies?

Ironically, it's the Cold War-- a period of prosperity for the First World-- that resulted in dictatorships worldwide, enforced by one or the other superpower. There doesn't seem to be much appetite these days for global interventions. (For whatever reason, that includes Trumpism.)

Your nightmare scenario would also require Europe to go full reactionary. I mean... you realize that you have 447 million people, a GNP of $16 trillion, and you're on top of the world technologically (along with the US and Japan)? That absolutely dwarfs (say) Russia, and who else is going to pick on you?

(BTW, I'm a bit curious why you chose 1949 as the end of an era above.)

The communist revolution in China.

Reactionary regimes are fragile and tend to blow themselves up relatively quickly. (Which may be of little consolation to those caught in the explosion.)

I wish I could share this optimism. I don't see any of the world's current reactionary regimes collapsing any time soon. Sure, some did over the past 20 years, but the others have learned their lessons from that.

Who learned what lessons now? Look at Putin-- his whole problem is that hasn't learned any lessons, and created a system for not learning lessons. No one is allowed to tell him how bad things are. And because of that, he's fucked up his invasion, his economy, and his hopes for defanging NATO. He'll be lucky to last out the year.

I don't think it's exactly optimistic to suggest that reactionaries can fail like Hitler failed. WWII was pretty destructive. But these bad boys achieve power by the same means they lose it: overwhelming personal ambition that takes advice from no one. They're not playing 14-dimensional chess.

It is possible to have very long-lasting right-wing regimes, but that requires a subtlety, and a sense of how far they can go, that reactionaries just don't have.

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 6:11 pm 1780: the world is run by absolute monarchs, always has been, always will be

England (technically Great Britain) was an obvious counter-example. (We had already established the principle that the monarch could not overrule a law just because it violated human rights.) And Athens and the Roman Republic were salient counter-examples from an earlier age.

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 6:11 pm 1910: the world is run by a small number of imperial, mercantile republics and always will be

Again, the domains of the King of England were an outstanding exception - self-government was on the rise. Or is G7 meant to embody the principle?

Raphael: Remember how your army performs when you're too good for human rights: https://youtu.be/cZk4Yu42g0I

Seeing human rights as social values is a spiritualized conservative position. In reality, you can't have meaningful elections if you don't have human rights. You can't hold your leaders responsible if you don't have meaningful elections. Your country can't compete in the international arena, either in war or peace, if you can't hold your leaders responsible.

To choose local culture over human rights is to choose oppression and failure over basic competence and decency.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 7:47 pm The thing about acceptance of sexual minorities is baffling.

Are you sure? What's all this I hear about Roe v. Wade being repealed?

Richard W wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 8:55 am

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 6:11 pm 1780: the world is run by absolute monarchs, always has been, always will be

England (technically Great Britain) was an obvious counter-example. (We had already established the principle that the monarch could not overrule a law just because it violated human rights.) And Athens and the Roman Republic were salient counter-examples from an earlier age.

I think you're missing the point here: my one-liners were not scholarly evaluations, they were rough summaries similar to Raphael's evaluation of the present day.

[re 1910] Again, the domains of the King of England were an outstanding exception - self-government was on the rise.

I can't let that one pass. If you're thinking of Canada, sure. But ask the Irish, Indians, or Kenyans about how much self-rule the Brits allowed.

zompist wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 4:29 pm

Richard W wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 8:55 am [re 1910] Again, the domains of the King of England were an outstanding exception - self-government was on the rise.

I can't let that one pass. If you're thinking of Canada, sure. But ask the Irish, Indians, or Kenyans about how much self-rule the Brits allowed.

I said 'on the rise'.

You are aware of the Irish Home Rule Bills, aren't you? The three were increasingly successful in parliament, with the third one, introduced in 1912, actually becoming the Government of Ireland Act 1914, but its implementation was delayed by the First World War and then overtaken by events.

Are you aware that British colonies and their effective equivalents generally have legislative councils? (This shouldn't surprise you if you consider American history.) For British India, see the Morley-Minto reforms of 1909, which introduced elections for the legislative councils of the provinces of British India. The princely states were always internally self-governing.

Now, for Kenya, I can't find any mention of a legislative council before 1920 - but that again is consistent with 'on the rise'.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 7:47 pmMore likely our definitions of these things will change. By the Founding Father’s standards, the USA is a hellscape of despotism. Income tax and meat inspections would cause them to collapse onto their decorative couches

lets let the Fathers recover from the idea that we run for office, rather than stand for office.
(i learned that from an article about being like Washington, in an anthology by AJ Jacobs)

zompist wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 4:01 amYour nightmare scenario would also require Europe to go full reactionary. I mean... you realize that you have 447 million people, a GNP of $16 trillion, and you're on top of the world technologically (along with the US and Japan)? That absolutely dwarfs (say) Russia, and who else is going to pick on you?

the phrase "stop hitting yourself" comes to mind - by which I mean this: just themselves.

Richard W wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 6:00 pm You are aware of the Irish Home Rule Bills, aren't you? The three were increasingly successful in parliament, with the third one, introduced in 1912, actually becoming the Government of Ireland Act 1914, but its implementation was delayed by the First World War and then overtaken by events.

Are you aware that British colonies and their effective equivalents generally have legislative councils?

Oh come on. If this is how colonial history is taught in Britain... well, read more and actually find out what you look like to former colonies.

Home Rule in Ireland in 1914? You recall that Ireland was conquered in 1603 (and again in 1653)? You remember the Irish potato famines, or the fact that Britain prevented any development in Ireland, exacerbating the famine?

(This shouldn't surprise you if you consider American history.)

Yes, we had to fight a war to get rid of the British. We did have legislatures; one of our complaints was that the King ignored or interfered with them.

For British India, see the Morley-Minto reforms of 1909, which introduced elections for the legislative councils of the provinces of British India. The princely states were always internally self-governing.

As I suggested, compare with Canada, which achieved home rule in 1867. Also maybe read some Canadian history: Canadians were not too happy with London, but were too polite to say so. (Britain had heavy investments in the US and tended to side with the US against their own colony.)

1909 did not give the Indian councils any real power, and even the 1937 elections were highly restrictive: only 14% of the adult population could vote. Britain relied on 2.5 million Indian troops during WWII-- while detaining the entire leadership of the Congress party.

Now, for Kenya, I can't find any mention of a legislative council before 1920 - but that again is consistent with 'on the rise'.

The problem with Kenya, from the British perspective, was that the natives had no interest in working for British plantations (established on stolen land). The Brits found a clever maneuver: require taxes to be paid in British money-- which could only be obtained by working for the plantations. They were worked so hard that half the population died. This was in the 1920s.

"General, the war is over!"

"What? Why do you say that?"

"I've just read a report that one of our soldiers has been killed!"

"Yes?"

"So, that's it. It's only a matter of time now. Should we evacuate? Swallow cyanide to avoid capture?"

"OK, who let the ZBB into the command tent?"

"You don't understand, General! I saw the report with my own eyes."

"Yes, and the enemy lost ten times as many. We overran half their defenses in the last battle alone and crippled their supply chain."

"But there was a tiny setback! We have to be losing. There's no other explanation."

"Fine. If I admit that you're right, that we're losing the war, will you go back to working the radio?"

"Of course. That's all I wanted in the first place."

Oh, and lol at using Kenya as an example of how Britain is "not like other girls."

zompist wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 8:37 pm

Richard W wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 6:00 pm You are aware of the Irish Home Rule Bills, aren't you? The three were increasingly successful in parliament, with the third one, introduced in 1912, actually becoming the Government of Ireland Act 1914, but its implementation was delayed by the First World War and then overtaken by events.

Are you aware that British colonies and their effective equivalents generally have legislative councils?

Oh come on. If this is how colonial history is taught in Britain... well, read more and actually find out what you look like to former colonies.

Home Rule in Ireland in 1914? You recall that Ireland was conquered in 1603 (and again in 1653)? You remember the Irish potato famines, or the fact that Britain prevented any development in Ireland, exacerbating the famine?

I personally blame the disruption to the Lord of Ireland's rule caused by Edward Bruce's invasion in 1315-8.

Now, potential self-rule wasn't curtailed until Poyning's Law in 1494, but it was then restored in 1782, only to be lost again with union in 1801. How was Britain preventing development in Ireland during the customs union of Britain and Ireland (1811-1921, fully resumed 1972-2020)?

zompist wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 8:37 pm

(This shouldn't surprise you if you consider American history.)

Yes, we had to fight a war to get rid of the British. We did have legislatures; one of our complaints was that the King ignored or interfered with them.

For British India, see the Morley-Minto reforms of 1909, which introduced elections for the legislative councils of the provinces of British India. The princely states were always internally self-governing.

As I suggested, compare with Canada, which achieved home rule in 1867. Also maybe read some Canadian history: Canadians were not too happy with London, but were too polite to say so. (Britain had heavy investments in the US and tended to side with the US against their own colony.)

1909 did not give the Indian councils any real power, and even the 1937 elections were highly restrictive: only 14% of the adult population could vote. Britain relied on 2.5 million Indian troops during WWII-- while detaining the entire leadership of the Congress party.

The point is that movement away from the control of the world by a few 'republics' was foreseeable, and in 1910 could be seen to be happening, at various speeds, in the British Empire. I don't see the relevance of the franchise - are you claiming that South Africa was not independent in 1961, rather than becoming practically independent in 1910? When British rule became intolerable in 1965, Rhodesia simply broke away, for all the good it did the electorate.