FWIW, I got a lot more about virtue ethics from reading Plato's works, the Stoics, and Cicero. Aristotle is somewhat dry and tedious to read. Go for him if you're into formal logic and related technical systems. But if you're truly interested in virtue ethics and have some reading discipline, try Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius.
On Marcus Aurelius: he's often recommended mindlessly (especially in tech circles). I actually to suggest to read him last. He does have valuable things to say, but he's the most depressive of the Big Three Stoics. You can better appreciate Aurelius if you've already digested some Socratic dialogues and Epictetus. One of the top-most Stoicism scholars (A. A. Long) describes Marcus Aurelius this way: "a melancholy emperor, who was hardly a card-carrying Stoic".
FWIW, here's[1] my recommended reading order and top English translations from five years ago. Cut out the cheap rehashes by people such as Ryan Holiday and stick to the originals. A bonus note[2] on the Roman gem, Cicero, from six years ago.
It doesn't help that nowadays Aurelius is being held up as some beacon of masculinity nowadays. I mean there are much worse role models but so many folks have been reductionist about his views and it can be problematic. There is some good ideas but they have become idolized.
I found the views of the Neoplatonists to be fascinating even if one doesn't subscribe to those views.
Generally, read broadly and from multiple points of view.
> It doesn't help that nowadays Aurelius is being held up as some beacon of masculinity nowadays.
Yeah, it's people like Tim Ferris, Ryan Holiday and others who write titles such as "how to think like a Roman emperor" (a terrible title if you know anything about Aurelius or Stoicism in some depth) and other tech bros are to blame. They drummed up excessive hype for Aurelius, he's good marketing material.
Neoplatonists: I tried reading Plotinus, but it didn't resonate with me, afraid. But it was a weak attempt.
Yeah, I think Plato's dialogues are unparalleled. I love the rigour, drama, and how they don't end with a clear conclusion ("aporia"), forcing you to find your own.
Well Aristotle's attempt to find a demonstrative science (or what we would refer to as science today) also led him to an aporia between universal categories and individual substance. It's just that Aristotle's aporia cannot be understood in Platonic terms.
> What would it take for LLMs to make me 100× more productive? Without this, I am doomed to irrelevance.
Are you, though? You will only be "doomed" if your place your value system squarely on "productivity". Then what is to differentiate you from a machine?
* * *
Edit: I'm not sure how I can feel confident about a proposal that puts so much value on "productivity". How can you reconcile this with "self-actualization"? (Don't get me wrong, I like my LLM-based productivity gains as the next person, but I care more about wisdom than becoming "100x more productive".)
Edit 2: "the goal of GA is to preserve individual human cognitive liberty and flourishing" — so the proposal is to do that by overlaying a software bot that continuously mimics your "self"?
Agreed, re: placing value squarely on productivity.
The thing is, we're all eventually irrelevant. That's the way the universe works. Every single one of us, after enough time. Claiming we're "doomed" to it is just ego talking.
The idea that longevity = meaningful is a value judgement derived from culture. In nature, many significant things happen in extremely small amounts of time.
One of the example Gwern brings [1] is a GA as an agent for public discourse and political life, to bring your "set of values" to have an effect in solving society's issues, when you yourself don't have the time or energy to.
I don't think it solves or reconciles with self-actualization, but, from a pragmatical point of view, it offers the promise of extending causally your set of views and philosophies to politics.
Gwern also mentions that it allows to keep "human values" (if the GA truly upholds yours) in the loop, in processes that are to eventually be automatized beyond human's reach.
> when you yourself don't have the time or energy to.
You don't have time, you take time. But what this boils down to is that they propose automating being politically or socially active, or have a bot speak for you.
First off, nobody human will take someone's digital replacement seriously. Second, if everyone did that, then you have a load of AIs just burning compute to talk in circles. This will not have meaningful outcomes, unless you reach for sci-fi stories where the outcome is that humans need to be imprisoned/destroyed for their own good.
that sounds uncomfortably like the public sphere version of spam - using an automated process to amplify some self-serving message and thereby increasingly clutter up the space and tax everyone's scarce and valuable attention.
> One of the example Gwern brings [1] is a GA as an agent for public discourse and political life, to bring your "set of values" to have an effect in solving society's issues, when you yourself don't have the time or energy to.
I'm sorry, that doesn't sound meaningful. If I don't have the energy, I'd rather shut up than have a stupid "avatar" of me yell on the internet in the name of "bringing my values" or "participate in an online discourse". I'm all for forward-looking thinking, but we must show humility. "Society's issues" are complex and deep. Those who propose internet-based solutions to troubling social ills don't often demonstrate a deep understanding of the nature of the problem. You can't plug it all with "agents"! Socrates would be rolling in his grave.
I know Silicon Valley is in a perpetual rush, but this idea needs more soak-time (3-4 years) to see if it actually holds any water. But this kind of thinking won't you get that sweet VC money.
I don't know if this is really about the public sphere as ut exists today. I suspect that the core idea is more along of the lines that in a world where policy is made by artificial super intelligences, you will need your own ASI to advocate on your behalf if your convictions are to have any impact at all.
If someone lacks the time and energy to stand behind their views, how much of that is a result of those views? If you care about the world and justice, if you love life and living things, that's your source of energy right there. If you have half-assed ideas that sound good in the bubble and zero charisma, you have no energy, and interacting with you doesn't give anyone energy.
So much of this just strikes me as "now that I've taken a wrong turn and am in a dead end, what deus ex machina could make this work after all and turn a shitty personality into something grand?", but that will never, ever work. Whatever problem you try to solve that way, now you have two.
On Marcus Aurelius: he's often recommended mindlessly (especially in tech circles). I actually to suggest to read him last. He does have valuable things to say, but he's the most depressive of the Big Three Stoics. You can better appreciate Aurelius if you've already digested some Socratic dialogues and Epictetus. One of the top-most Stoicism scholars (A. A. Long) describes Marcus Aurelius this way: "a melancholy emperor, who was hardly a card-carrying Stoic".
FWIW, here's[1] my recommended reading order and top English translations from five years ago. Cut out the cheap rehashes by people such as Ryan Holiday and stick to the originals. A bonus note[2] on the Roman gem, Cicero, from six years ago.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22990579
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24638573