Given an interest in macro-ing life (that is, developing systems that accelerate life by compressing timesteps by using macros [information transformers]), what fundamental insights might there be in this behavior?
Any time there is a sense where something is going to be repeated and the number of timesteps can be compressed by using macros, by macro-ing, is perhaps a good time to actually develop the macro itself, or at least make progress on its development, given a long enough time horizon: the Longgame.
Another way to look at it is that more can be produced in the same number of timesteps, the more macros have been developed and implemented, perhaps. Rather than doing less creative work, more research and development of bigger systems can be had, perhaps.
And what about generalizing “macroing” to be “information transformation” on a bigger scale?
That is, if you can get someone else to do a process for you, then you can perhaps reduce the number of timesteps/(needed nguvu [the multiplication of care and energy]) to bring about the desired result.
If you consider a model of the purpose of life to be to have fun and interesting memories, then macros can _themselves_ be made fun&interesting, perhaps. That is, the research and development of compressing timesteps, of information transformers, can _itself_ be an intriguing pursuit.
And yet, there is of course still the issue of _using_ those macros, and so perhaps that can indicate that there are different classes of macros, different families; some macros are more focused on accelerating the development of macros.
Thus Longgame macro theory makes an advancement: information transformers themselves can have different attributes and aspects, with some of them focused more on the development of more transformers.
And what is the benefit of this knowledge? Perhaps it is that this aspect of certain macros indicates that they should not be taken as simple-accelerators—they accelerate the creation of accelerators, perhaps.
To phrase another way, sometimes you are teaching students who will produce work, and sometimes you are teaching students who will teach students.
It’s not that any of them are ‘better’, per se; what is important to keep in mind is that if you wish to most effectively accelerate life, then you need to keep in mind that certain accelerators have deeper acceleration than just might be seen on the surface, and so when considering one’s self as the Longgame, as the unification of Eternity and Now, as going to live forever, then even slight improvements in the process of macro-creation itself will compound very rapidly, surprisingly rapidly, perhaps.
For instance, developing skills of inputting more per timestep (e.g., by practicing typing to be more effective) can pay off deeply, even though it may not be directly productive, per se, perhaps.
Another example might be on learning how to communicate more effectively—you may not communicate _what_ you learn, but it can radically improve _the process_, and so reduce the number of timesteps spent on miscommunication, perhaps.
And how does lifelogging factor into this? What does the recording and organization of life’s experiences and memories have to do with macros, with information transformers?
And perhaps that gives a potent clue on one angle: the more macros are used, the more effectively life can be logged, perhaps.
Another angle might be that mining a lifelog (i.e., researching and finding underlying helpful patterns) can speed and improve the development of macros: it can provide a higher-level view of the situation and so show what to focus on, perhaps.
Thus, if the point of life is to have fun and interesting memories, and macros help log life more effectively, and a lifelog helps develop more effective macros, then lifelogging is obviously overtly helpful, perhaps.
It’s very interesting how life can be helped and accelerated, perhaps.