4 ms·

> megalomaniacal persons with lust for power and disregard of others I think the problem with these sorts of people is that they are not actually that smart. C

> megalomaniacal persons with lust for power and disregard of others I think the problem with these sorts of people is that they are not actually that smart. Cognitively, as all-rounders, they lack crucial faculties of imagination, which not ironically are rooted in compassion, that lead to gross strategic errors. Landmines and impact grenades tied to a balloon are also "autonomous weapons". They are indiscriminate. The former are persistent and the later are ephemeral. The former are also reusable. Within a weapons taxonomy the most dangerous (for yourself) to manufacture are persistent, autonomous and reusable. In other words, like a knife in a fight, there's a very good likelihood your opponent will take it off you and use it against you. Most IEDs used against British and US soldiers are made from UXO. Weapons like drones are a gift to terrorists. For everything you make, one must imagine it being used on a busy city shopping street where your own family are. It's because the megalomaniacs are not actually that smart that they don't realise taking humans out of the loop is the same as relinquishing control, which is one step removed from handing control to the enemy.

MichaelZuo 2y ago
This seems a bit redundant to be honest. Any maniac who is actually super competent would be able to fool you into thinking otherwise. Because they can outwit you by definition. And the inverse also is tautological, of course you can spot those not that competent.
- nonrandomstring 2y ago
  I guess there's two (non-contradictory) conversations going on at once here. My emphasis is more on what we can do, or not do, as participants in a technological society that chooses what technology to make. There is also the conversation on what to do about moustache-twisting, cat stroking, comedy Bond villains with tanks of laser-sharks. I don't think they are fooling any of us. They swagger around in plain sight, naked in their madness, and we could literally write a list of their names here on HN. Of course these strategic and psychiatric questions are related. "Dr. Strangelove" and "Don't look up" remain useful guides.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    > My emphasis is more on what we can do, or not do, as participants in a technological society that chooses what technology to make. The laws of physics do not (or are not known to at least) prevent people from desiring to fix this hilariously suboptimal "democracy" we live under and most everyone seems to hate (well, except when they're gushing about how great it is), but something does. I often wonder if propaganda and culture play a role. > I don't think they are fooling any of us. I believe the opposite - I believe at least 95% of people are adequately fooled (to sustain indefinite disinterest), and most of the remaining 5% are "conspiracy theorists" which we all know can be safely ignored.
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  I think psycho/sociopath types are a bit like the uncanny valley, where most people can tell something is off without it being obvious what. It happens because being clever isn’t the same as having the absurd level of self control needed to fake normality.
globalnode 2y ago
relying on their "lack of well roundedness" isnt that great a strategy imho
jongjong 2y ago
The thing is it's usually going to be some freakishly weird outlier who will cause the problems. People who act within the realm of normalcy rarely pose an unexpected threat. There exist people who are both megalomaniac and rational and this is precisely the kinds of people who are typically selected for positions of power. However rare such individuals may be, countries like the US have a large pool of candidates to sift through. The people in power are capable of being perfectly rational in every aspect, except for the one aspect where they are required to be irrational. The system is essentially selecting people for their blind-spots and that's why we often see displays of extreme hypocrisy from politicians and other public figureheads. They are 100%, perfectly rational about everything except when it relates to pursuing their own self-interest, yet because they are rational in every other aspects, they know how to hide this irrationality from other people.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
wolverine876 2y ago
> they are not actually that smart It includes billionaire leaders of the IT industry. Whatever their flaws, it doesn't stop them from developing, building, and scaling technology - beyond anyone else in the world.
- Arainach 2y ago
  It is a mistake in logic to assume that because someone is successful they are talented or deserving. There is a huge luck factor and even larger "pre-existing advantages" factor i.e. rich parents, being born in the right area, etc. This is a fallacy very common in America in particular (though by no means only found there). If you have money, buy a sports team, and the managers of the team turn it into a champion, that does not inherently make you a gifted owner or manager - it means you had the capital to get in.
  - wolverine876 2y ago
    > It is a mistake in logic to assume that because someone is successful they are talented or deserving. There are other very strong indications of their capabilities. I suppose talent doesn't matter, just their ability to create outcomes.
    - trimethylpurine 2y ago
      Which is talent. Almost no one who has won the lottery was wealthy for very long. One exception is Stefan Mandel, a mathematician who bought all the tickets repeatedly. Very much a talent. Retaining a position of "luck" is itself a talent. It's a mistake to assume, but it's not a mistake to make a logical and educated guess that someone successful is likely also talented.
    - nonrandomstring 2y ago
      > just their ability to create outcomes Attila, Alexander, Hitler, Stalin ... those guys got things done. "Outcomes" need to be morally qualified.

MichaelZuo 2y ago

This seems a bit redundant to be honest. Any maniac who is actually super competent would be able to fool you into thinking otherwise. Because they can outwit you by definition. And the inverse also is tautological, of course you can spot those not that competent.

nonrandomstring 2y ago
I guess there's two (non-contradictory) conversations going on at once here. My emphasis is more on what we can do, or not do, as participants in a technological society that chooses what technology to make. There is also the conversation on what to do about moustache-twisting, cat stroking, comedy Bond villains with tanks of laser-sharks. I don't think they are fooling any of us. They swagger around in plain sight, naked in their madness, and we could literally write a list of their names here on HN. Of course these strategic and psychiatric questions are related. "Dr. Strangelove" and "Don't look up" remain useful guides.
- mistermann 2y ago
  > My emphasis is more on what we can do, or not do, as participants in a technological society that chooses what technology to make. The laws of physics do not (or are not known to at least) prevent people from desiring to fix this hilariously suboptimal "democracy" we live under and most everyone seems to hate (well, except when they're gushing about how great it is), but something does. I often wonder if propaganda and culture play a role. > I don't think they are fooling any of us. I believe the opposite - I believe at least 95% of people are adequately fooled (to sustain indefinite disinterest), and most of the remaining 5% are "conspiracy theorists" which we all know can be safely ignored.
BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
I think psycho/sociopath types are a bit like the uncanny valley, where most people can tell something is off without it being obvious what. It happens because being clever isn’t the same as having the absurd level of self control needed to fake normality.

globalnode 2y ago

relying on their "lack of well roundedness" isnt that great a strategy imho

jongjong 2y ago

The thing is it's usually going to be some freakishly weird outlier who will cause the problems. People who act within the realm of normalcy rarely pose an unexpected threat. There exist people who are both megalomaniac and rational and this is precisely the kinds of people who are typically selected for positions of power. However rare such individuals may be, countries like the US have a large pool of candidates to sift through. The people in power are capable of being perfectly rational in every aspect, except for the one aspect where they are required to be irrational. The system is essentially selecting people for their blind-spots and that's why we often see displays of extreme hypocrisy from politicians and other public figureheads. They are 100%, perfectly rational about everything except when it relates to pursuing their own self-interest, yet because they are rational in every other aspects, they know how to hide this irrationality from other people.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

wolverine876 2y ago

> they are not actually that smart It includes billionaire leaders of the IT industry. Whatever their flaws, it doesn't stop them from developing, building, and scaling technology - beyond anyone else in the world.

Arainach 2y ago
It is a mistake in logic to assume that because someone is successful they are talented or deserving. There is a huge luck factor and even larger "pre-existing advantages" factor i.e. rich parents, being born in the right area, etc. This is a fallacy very common in America in particular (though by no means only found there). If you have money, buy a sports team, and the managers of the team turn it into a champion, that does not inherently make you a gifted owner or manager - it means you had the capital to get in.
- wolverine876 2y ago
  > It is a mistake in logic to assume that because someone is successful they are talented or deserving. There are other very strong indications of their capabilities. I suppose talent doesn't matter, just their ability to create outcomes.
  - trimethylpurine 2y ago
    Which is talent. Almost no one who has won the lottery was wealthy for very long. One exception is Stefan Mandel, a mathematician who bought all the tickets repeatedly. Very much a talent. Retaining a position of "luck" is itself a talent. It's a mistake to assume, but it's not a mistake to make a logical and educated guess that someone successful is likely also talented.
  - nonrandomstring 2y ago
    > just their ability to create outcomes Attila, Alexander, Hitler, Stalin ... those guys got things done. "Outcomes" need to be morally qualified.