4 ms·

Huh? People have been "co-living" in urban areas forever, even though in some areas it is technically illegal. It's technically illegal in the city I live in bu

Huh? People have been "co-living" in urban areas forever, even though in some areas it is technically illegal. It's technically illegal in the city I live in but everyone does it. This just sounds like a corporate, rent extracting appropriation of "co-living". Honestly I'm sick and tired of the normalization of rent seeking. It's draining our collective creative energy. If you want a glimpse into the original organized "co-living" movement, see here: https://coophousing.org/ https://coophousing.org/

xvedejas 7y ago
I'm a big fan of the co-living movement, and that's why it's exciting to see it mainstreamed by corporations. I hope they're successful and we see more options for people to live with one another. I live in a group house and don't mind seeing this lifestyle normalized. I certainly lose nothing when more options are available to others.
- macawfish 7y ago
  I hear you, and I'm all for alternative options for living. But I'm frustrated that for profit corporations have such a stranglehold on capital, and are therefore in a position to dictate the physical and social infrastructure of these spaces. The corporate domination of capital is essentially takeover of local governance.
  - xvedejas 7y ago
    I think the solution is a land value tax. This would take the value out of excluding others from land. There are known solutions to this known problem, it's the political class to blame.
klenwell 7y ago
> Honestly I'm sick and tired of the normalization of rent seeking. It's draining our collective creative energy. I feel like this is the prototype of Roko's basilisk.[0] I mean the rent-seeking part isn't new. That's been around since the beginning of time. Rent-seekers are going to rent-seek. But the application of the latest modern technology to optimize it. This whole gig economy. That's new and feels like it's getting out of control. [0] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk
- RodgerTheGreat 7y ago
  The central point of Roko's basilisk is that the "basilisk" is only dangerous to people who understand/agree with it, and thus, for LessWrong advocates, are vulnerable to acausal extortion from a malevolent future AI. To be a "victim" of the basilisk you must subscribe to various axioms, and if you wind up being correct, acting in accordance with your hypothetical singularity AI's hypothetical desires is paramount. For example, you must assume that the AI will come into being, can simulate copies of people derived from "first principles", and that "timeless decision theory" makes sense to both human beings and the AI to the extent that acausal motivation is viable. Some people are very convinced of these ideas, but there is hardly overwhelming consensus. Runaway optimization of rent-seeking is more like a ponzi scheme "as advertised": the later you get in on the action, the harder you get screwed. It is uniformly bad for anyone who didn't have a combination of luck and capital in the early stages. The risk and payoff of not being able to afford housing in the forseeable future is much more concrete, universally applicable, and requires only extrapolating from trends; a far smaller series of logical leaps. I'm not seeing the connection you're attempting to draw. Care to clarify?

xvedejas 7y ago

I'm a big fan of the co-living movement, and that's why it's exciting to see it mainstreamed by corporations. I hope they're successful and we see more options for people to live with one another. I live in a group house and don't mind seeing this lifestyle normalized. I certainly lose nothing when more options are available to others.

macawfish 7y ago
I hear you, and I'm all for alternative options for living. But I'm frustrated that for profit corporations have such a stranglehold on capital, and are therefore in a position to dictate the physical and social infrastructure of these spaces. The corporate domination of capital is essentially takeover of local governance.
- xvedejas 7y ago
  I think the solution is a land value tax. This would take the value out of excluding others from land. There are known solutions to this known problem, it's the political class to blame.

klenwell 7y ago

> Honestly I'm sick and tired of the normalization of rent seeking. It's draining our collective creative energy. I feel like this is the prototype of Roko's basilisk.[0] I mean the rent-seeking part isn't new. That's been around since the beginning of time. Rent-seekers are going to rent-seek. But the application of the latest modern technology to optimize it. This whole gig economy. That's new and feels like it's getting out of control. [0] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk

RodgerTheGreat 7y ago
The central point of Roko's basilisk is that the "basilisk" is only dangerous to people who understand/agree with it, and thus, for LessWrong advocates, are vulnerable to acausal extortion from a malevolent future AI. To be a "victim" of the basilisk you must subscribe to various axioms, and if you wind up being correct, acting in accordance with your hypothetical singularity AI's hypothetical desires is paramount. For example, you must assume that the AI will come into being, can simulate copies of people derived from "first principles", and that "timeless decision theory" makes sense to both human beings and the AI to the extent that acausal motivation is viable. Some people are very convinced of these ideas, but there is hardly overwhelming consensus. Runaway optimization of rent-seeking is more like a ponzi scheme "as advertised": the later you get in on the action, the harder you get screwed. It is uniformly bad for anyone who didn't have a combination of luck and capital in the early stages. The risk and payoff of not being able to afford housing in the forseeable future is much more concrete, universally applicable, and requires only extrapolating from trends; a far smaller series of logical leaps. I'm not seeing the connection you're attempting to draw. Care to clarify?