Just read the china talk post. I don't know how accurate it is on how CCP is thinking about this internally, but if it is, it is looking pretty brutal for the pause faction. 

The post seems to mostly support your claims and the implications for the pause movement are not great. China feels antagonized, and for good reason. Trump does not seem likely to stop pushing a race narrative. The best bet seems like the legislative branch introducing a bill but this doesn't solve coordination with china and as we get closer to ASI I'm not even clear if this will hold up legally as it might turn into a military issue. 

do you have any connections there? I'm happy to help if you know anyone who wants to lead it. I've helped start up multiple clubs and think it's actually not so hard if there are one or two people who actually care

If people are confused about what to do this is a good place to start. 

I'll add some really low upfront costs things that may or may not be useful but literally everyone can do them. 

- Text your close friends and family how you really feel/view of the current situation. 
- check if there is a local AIS advocacy groups in your area. Not even asking you to join, just familiarize and take it from there. 
- start reaching out to local non AIS groups (running clubs, choir, churches, etc.) in your area and building connections, these could be useful down the line for organizing. 

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HBbd5vnZGar3BDX4Y/science-and-news-twitter-x-summarizer

might want to check this out. I also have been learning social media over the last 2 months and went to pdku so can give you some thoughts and help you network if you want to shoot me a dm.

Fair enough, FWIW I mostly agree and glad you brought it up. I have most of my money in index funds and feel like that's better than having it all in ai stocks but this will prompt me to give it some more consideration.

There are two separate concerns. One is capitalizing the companies and the other is changing your incentives. I'm generally more worried about the latter, esp if you aren't super rich. Do you think having all your money in index funds makes you less likely to support regulations that the unbiased version of you would want to support?

authoritarianism

I'm also super wary of this, but I think these words are super complicated... I'm not sure why you think my (half-baked, not well defined) suggestion is more "authoritarian" than what would result from e.g. no significant policy changes between now and ASI (not a fair comparison but just to be extreme). If you jack wealth inequality and tech to it's limit then probably I won't be able to afford to live on earth anymore even if I have nearly unlimited material goods. I guess in your view this is less authoritarian than whatever I'm suggesting. 

"problem x exists because we don't have enough information, ASI will definitionally have enough information, so if ASI, problem x dissolves."

This seems more vague than what I am saying. I think my core claim is approximately: We can incentivize humans to do things with money. This is net good because even though human wealth has diminishing returns to utility (and/or no god given right to more power/control than others), the increased wealth creation more than offsets the inefficient distribution of consumption and unfair distribution of power. If we get 1000000x wealthier we should shift more and more towards re distribution (edit: additionally relationship between redistribution and incentives might break down in the case of ASI but less sure). However this seems improbable to instantiate after ASI so we should do it before. 

Theoretically you could make a similar argument without ASI. "Once we have figured out all tech and optimized energy/wealth creation, there is little reason to incentivize innovation". 

Writing it out it the whole argument is definitely quite leaky, hopefully whatever you publish can be more sound. 
 

It seems somewhat unjustified to divy up the entire lightcone to the control of current humans, but honestly it's not easy to come up with something simple that is much better, and I'd definitely say this is a significantly better outcome than letting 10k people control 90% so I'd be quite happy with it. 

Yea that's fair I was pretty loose with the meaning of words. I think my general point is once we have ASI it seems at best unclear why we should let some humans have more control than others based on their pre ASI capital. 

What would it take to convince you this approach is wrong?

We’ll get back to you on that shortly, just after our IPO.

lol exactly... good luck imposing your ethical will after the ipo