pull down to refresh

Intro

I'm going to slam some rocks together. It doesn't really culminate in anything, so if that bugs you, abort now!

Rock 1

I'm not one generally to talk about elites all the time, but being elite is real [0]. The social class is largely but not completely closed to new entrants, globally pervasive, and resilient over time [1]. Members of this class are rich [2] and they have a lot of influence over stuff, particularly governance structures and institutions of all flavors.

Rock 2

You've heard of ChatGPT and probably are aware that there's a host of other large language models of comparable intelligence. You may not be aware that the general recipe for creating one of these things is to feed it as much data as you can get your hands on. A problem is that at this point, the state-of-the-art LLMs need all the digital data that exists in the world, but that's not the main problem. The main problem is that each leap forward in intelligence generally requires an order of magnitude more data. Since the current SOTA LLMs already have consumed all the reasonable data, that puts us in a bit of a pickle [3].
A common move to get around this is, in addition to using all the data in existence, to also use data that's generated somehow, so you can gin up an infinite amount of it. And what's the best way to generate certain kinds of data? LLMs! Which means we have a pointing-two-mirrors-at-each-other situation, which intuitively seems ... disturbing, for reasons you might not be able to name.
Fortunately, you don't have to name it because Shumailov et al [4] have named it for you, and the name is the curse of recursion. I would summarize their findings this way:
  • the world is really complicated and full of weird nuances that are hard to characterize
  • LLMs are really good, like, they are excellent at boiling down that complexity and giving you very intelligent responses to whatever you ask them about
  • but they're not perfect!
  • so the data they create is, in various hard-to-describe ways, less complex and rich than data from the actual world
  • which means that, the more you train LLMs on LLM-trained data, the more they get weird ideas about the world due to the reduced complexity of the data that they're seeing
  • and if you use these LLM-trained LLMs to generate data to train new LLMs you get, after a few generations, really strange and inbred LLMs
which makes deep intuitive sense when you think about it.

Rock 3

There's a an idea, introduced by Dan Klein, called the half-life of policy (intro here) which basically says that any policy you can think of was created in a certain socio-technological context [5], and (if we're lucky) it made sense in that context, but the nature of technological change is such that it probably doesn't make sense any more.
The obvious policies that you would imagine are laws passed by political bodies of some sort, but the logic works everywhere -- rules get outdated when the underlying circumstances change, and nothing changes underlying circumstances as quickly or as profoundly as technology does [6].

Discussion

If you bang these rocks together, you get some interesting implications.
First, you have a class of people who, as time passes, become increasingly abstracted from the physical and social universe that the rest of us occupy. As a birthright, they're been plopped down next to the machinery that runs reality, but they have little conception of reality because they've never touched it, because they don't need to touch it. All they have to do to have wealth continue to rain down on them like gently falling snow [7] is not run a child sex ring, which, admittedly, is a bridge too far for some. But mostly, they're good, they get on the conveyor belt and they have a nice time.
But something weird happens when the world start changing faster and faster: the handbook for world domination gets increasingly outdated. It's like picking up an old book on software development from Goodwill for $1 - the process described to build a program doesn't work, you get all kinds of unparseable errors, the menu options don't correspond to what they show you in the figures. It's confusing and hard to take effective action.
Despite this, most of the same people continue to run the show, even though they suck at it. And the longer they do, and the more things change, the worse the effects are. And yet these effects give rise to the next wave -- the system consumes the fruits of its own mindless grinding, and those fruits are malformed, and eating them warps the people who do the eating, making them even less fit for the challenges to come.
The whole thing is a flywheel: the faster it turns, the quicker the machine lurches forward into some impossible Cthulu geography. It's not clown world so much as a Dali painting.

References

[0] Mills, C. W. (1981). The power elite [1956]. New York.
[1] Cousin, B., & Chauvin, S. (2021). Is there a global super‐bourgeoisie? Sociology Compass, 15(6), e12883. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12883
[2] Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Harvard University Press.
[3] Don't nitpick me -- how long do you want this post to be?
[4] Shumailov, I., Shumaylov, Z., Zhao, Y., Gal, Y., Papernot, N., & Anderson, R. (2023). The Curse of Recursion: Training on Generated Data Makes Models Forget (arXiv:2305.17493). arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.17493
[5] Perez, C. (2003). Technological revolutions and financial capital. Edward Elgar Publishing.
[6] Lyn Alden talks about a related aspect of this: the technological determinism at the heart of both money and fiat monetary dysfunction. We've discussed this a few times on SN.
[7] Brooks, D. (2012). The social animal: The hidden sources of love, character, and achievement. Random House Trade Paperbacks.
this territory is moderated
I've had a sort of half-baked hypothesis that regimes often fail when the prevailing communications technology changes. I'm thinking specifically about the printing press in Europe and the fax machine in the Soviet Union.
Along the lines you articulated here, regimes (or elites) develop an intricate framework of defenses that usually involves information management. It takes generations for those frameworks to evolve. As with the natural selection process in living organisms, they don't develop protections against threats they haven't faced.
So, when the prevailing information technology changes the elites become exposed in ways they aren't prepared to manage.
reply
I think that's right -- and not just elites, in that case, but any complex system, of which elites are always a manifestation, like the ants around your dropped ice cream cone.
reply
This is very well written. Kudos.
But something weird happens when the world start changing faster and faster: the handbook for world domination gets increasingly outdated. It's like picking up an old book on software development from Goodwill for $1 - the process described to build a program doesn't work, you get all kinds of unparseable errors, the menu options don't correspond to what they show you in the figures. It's confusing and hard to take effective action.
What happens when the institutions, media, governance structures elites once held great influence over begin to lose their own power over the machinery that sets the world in motion? Do elites just go gentle into that good night and accept their less "elite" status and just have fun staying rich or do they rage rage against the dying of the light and seek new paths to exert their influence over?
reply
Do elites just go gentle into that good night and accept their less "elite" status and just have fun staying rich or do they rage rage against the dying of the light and seek new paths to exert their influence over?
I, like Mr. Thomas, have wondered the same.
Preliminary research suggests that the idea that many bitcoiners cherish, that the groups they hate will be vanquished, wallowing in the mud while the bitcoiners ride around triumphantly in chariots, would be historically unprecedented. The usual scenario is that most of the current elites will continue to be richer and more culturally prominent in the post-btc rapture than most plebs, since they have more money to deploy in service of the new thing, whatever that is.
If you want to make a different case, you'd be bucking history. In fact, it's probably truer now than ever before, since Bezos doesn't need to maintain economic viability of a collection of steel foundries to stay rich; he just needs his broad market exposure to continue to pay returns, and whatever btc he owns to appreciate. The very top dogs may be new dogs, but unless there's some kind of ethnic cleansing / cultural revolution where they are actually murdered, the old dogs will still be around.
reply
Sounds about right
reply
The parallels between rocks 1 and 2 are interesting. Elites pair with elites, creating further separation from reality. LLMs use data from LLMs, creating further separation from the raw data.
Though I have always qualified anyone who thinks they know better than the public as an elite. IE, people often argue we shouldn't have more school choice because "poor people don't choose the right schools." I find that an abhorrent stance, as it assumes their preferences are better than all others. I don't think this changes the elites pairing with elites changes, however.
reply
I'm with you, which is one of the reasons I was wary about talking about "elites" at all, and probably too resistant to learning about them.
Every system of any kind, anywhere, has some smallish group that exerts outsize control over it. Sometimes -- perhaps often -- this is fine, and what you want. If I ever need neurosurgery I will be super glad to have HMS-trained surgeon who did residency at Cleveland Clinic or wherever. A lot of people who run things, and are sufficiently exposed to the consequences of reality, are both elite and incredibly competent. You want them on that wall.
"Elite" shouldn't be a condemnation, but sometimes, in practice, it is.
reply
The Lovecraft/Dali comparisons are spot-on. Love these things in fiction and art, but would appreciate not having them in the real world.
Despite this, most of the same people continue to run the show, even though they suck at it. And the longer they do, and the more things change, the worse the effects are. And yet these effects give rise to the next wave -- the system consumes the fruits of its own mindless grinding, and those fruits are malformed, and eating them warps the people who do the eating, making them even less fit for the challenges to come.
I think part of the issue here is that the elites start at such a high peak, that even as they get worse and make the world worse, they're feeling the impact to such a small degree. Trump lost a lot of his dad's money, and his kids will lose more of his, but it'll probably not be until their kids (even with inflation dovetailing with elitism) where they may legitimately lose their status. Same with most of the other elites.
the handbook for world domination gets increasingly outdated. It's like picking up an old book on software development from Goodwill for $1 - the process described to build a program doesn't work, you get all kinds of unparseable errors, the menu options don't correspond to what they show you in the figures. It's confusing and hard to take effective action.
Love this analogy a lot. And I especially love it because it felt like, not that long ago, you could pick up an older software development book and have it still mostly work, but as things moved more quickly, that rapidly became less and less true.
reply
I think part of the issue here is that the elites start at such a high peak, that even as they get worse and make the world worse, they're feeling the impact to such a small degree. Trump lost a lot of his dad's money, and his kids will lose more of his, but it'll probably not be until their kids (even with inflation dovetailing with elitism) where they may legitimately lose their status.
Agreed. That's basically what @grayruby is wondering about, and I think you've got it right -- the financialization of everything means that, as unsavory as it may be, these dipshits are going to be living large even in a hyperbitcoinized future, unless they are truly, epically stupid.
reply
I like the style of writing and the structure of the text with references. If you allow me to offer another perspective, it's not only about elites; it's all about the individual human. We can both think of people with significant power who are doing good in the world.
However, there will always be individuals at the lower end looking up to the elites and desiring to wield their power destructively. To illustrate my opinion here is a picture:
To conclude and return to your point: Destructive elites in power are the most harmful entities to our planet. Let's strip away their power, eliminating the Cantillon Effect, and decentralize this power to humanity.
For the Final Money!
Happy Easter :)
reply
I am speechless. This is pure logic mixed with existentialism. Amazing! Amazing!
reply