Universal politeness is a problem that makes the world worse.
Most people have a difficult time judging ideas, so they end up going along with whatever social framework the ideas are presented within. What ideas they take seriously is a social, not intellectual phenomenon. Therefore, what the "smart people" seem to respect gains immediate respect. The framework determines the discussion.
The problem arises when terrible ideas, presented by bad thinkers (or disingenuous ones) are treated with undeserved respect. It's like going along with a lie because you don't want to be rude. This happens all the time outside the world of ideas, and it's why we get "respected" martial artists who are incompetent, teaching other people to be incompetent.
In the worst cases, it's how you end up with priests abusing people for decades. Nobody wants to speak up, be rude, and risk rocking the boat.
I see it right now with the Rationalist AI Exterminationists. All the signs of a cult, including impending apocalypse and polycules.
Polite engagement with the ideas of the cult leader is not what's needed. In fact, if this is actually a cult, such behavior makes the world worse. What's needed is somebody saying "Wake up, dummies. You're trapped in a cult. The signs are there."
The correct response to Applewhite is not, "But what if the Earth *is* about to be spaded over by aliens?! We only get one shot at this..."
It's, "This guy has signs of mental illness and looks to be building a cult." If that's rude, then I'll be the rude one, and you can thank me in a few years.
"Polite engagement with the ideas of the cult leader is not what's needed. In fact, if this is actually a cult, such behavior makes the world worse. What's needed is somebody saying 'Wake up, dummies. You're trapped in a cult. The signs are there.'"
I guess that answers my question on whether you plan to refute the rationale behind their predictions. To me this sounds anti-intellectual. It sounds a lot like what book burners would say, or progressive university students would say to justify banning people from speaking in schools. They also think to even engage with certain ideas would make the world worse.
I think you're jumping into some wild conclusions here. I don't know enough about him either (I've just listened to every interview he's been on this year) but I would gladly take that bet.
Maybe it's the fact that he advocated for government intervention that rubs you the wrong way.
Instead of pegging him for a cultist I'd like to see you take on his arguments (and those of others who say human extinction is a significant possibility). I'd like you to do that for my own sake. I've been seeing the arguments about why a super intelligent AI would do this, and it makes sense. Since I'm not smart enough, I'm looking for refutations of those arguments, and seeing this uncharitable slander (from you no less) doesn't give me much confidence that they are wrong.
If you're willing to take on those arguments specifically, I just want to point you to this short video that made things click for me as to why AI would turn on us: https://youtu.be/ZeecOKBus3Q
This take seems uncharacteristically uncharitable coming from you. I more or less agree that if the only way we can save humanity from certain doom is to implement global totalitarianism, then humanity is just doomed and we shouldn’t bother. You’ve been trying to take the doomsayers seriously in your previous comments, which I commend. I realize how difficult it can sometimes be to apply charity, so I do not intend this criticism to be a call for Thor to strike you with lightning. I just wanted you to know I think you usually achieve a higher standard than this.
Maybe it would be kinder to praise you when you make interesting and worthwhile posts, and remain silent when you goof up. But all that praise might get tedious! Just saying “plus one” now and then doesn’t really add anything.
AI is coming, whether the Yudkowsky crowd and similar cults like it or not. Actually, to a great extent it's already here. Computer programs are already much better than top human chess players. Speech recognition is already in place. Vast databases of knowledge grow by leaps and bounds every day, as does the ability of programs to access that knowledge intelligently.
Is there really anything to fear? I don't think so. Oh, all right, I fear packs of AI robot dogs acting like terminators, but bad guys having superior weaponry is nothing new. I don't fear Skynet, because humans have too much fun shooting off bombs manually to turn the decision over to a computer.
Steve, why does history repeat itself? Is the universe naturally cyclical? I think you're repeating history from my other philosopher for another time, don't you think?
(From Twitter)
Universal politeness is a problem that makes the world worse.
Most people have a difficult time judging ideas, so they end up going along with whatever social framework the ideas are presented within. What ideas they take seriously is a social, not intellectual phenomenon. Therefore, what the "smart people" seem to respect gains immediate respect. The framework determines the discussion.
The problem arises when terrible ideas, presented by bad thinkers (or disingenuous ones) are treated with undeserved respect. It's like going along with a lie because you don't want to be rude. This happens all the time outside the world of ideas, and it's why we get "respected" martial artists who are incompetent, teaching other people to be incompetent.
In the worst cases, it's how you end up with priests abusing people for decades. Nobody wants to speak up, be rude, and risk rocking the boat.
I see it right now with the Rationalist AI Exterminationists. All the signs of a cult, including impending apocalypse and polycules.
Polite engagement with the ideas of the cult leader is not what's needed. In fact, if this is actually a cult, such behavior makes the world worse. What's needed is somebody saying "Wake up, dummies. You're trapped in a cult. The signs are there."
The correct response to Applewhite is not, "But what if the Earth *is* about to be spaded over by aliens?! We only get one shot at this..."
It's, "This guy has signs of mental illness and looks to be building a cult." If that's rude, then I'll be the rude one, and you can thank me in a few years.
I just saw you say this on a tweet
"Polite engagement with the ideas of the cult leader is not what's needed. In fact, if this is actually a cult, such behavior makes the world worse. What's needed is somebody saying 'Wake up, dummies. You're trapped in a cult. The signs are there.'"
I guess that answers my question on whether you plan to refute the rationale behind their predictions. To me this sounds anti-intellectual. It sounds a lot like what book burners would say, or progressive university students would say to justify banning people from speaking in schools. They also think to even engage with certain ideas would make the world worse.
I think you're jumping into some wild conclusions here. I don't know enough about him either (I've just listened to every interview he's been on this year) but I would gladly take that bet.
Maybe it's the fact that he advocated for government intervention that rubs you the wrong way.
Instead of pegging him for a cultist I'd like to see you take on his arguments (and those of others who say human extinction is a significant possibility). I'd like you to do that for my own sake. I've been seeing the arguments about why a super intelligent AI would do this, and it makes sense. Since I'm not smart enough, I'm looking for refutations of those arguments, and seeing this uncharitable slander (from you no less) doesn't give me much confidence that they are wrong.
If you're willing to take on those arguments specifically, I just want to point you to this short video that made things click for me as to why AI would turn on us: https://youtu.be/ZeecOKBus3Q
This take seems uncharacteristically uncharitable coming from you. I more or less agree that if the only way we can save humanity from certain doom is to implement global totalitarianism, then humanity is just doomed and we shouldn’t bother. You’ve been trying to take the doomsayers seriously in your previous comments, which I commend. I realize how difficult it can sometimes be to apply charity, so I do not intend this criticism to be a call for Thor to strike you with lightning. I just wanted you to know I think you usually achieve a higher standard than this.
Maybe it would be kinder to praise you when you make interesting and worthwhile posts, and remain silent when you goof up. But all that praise might get tedious! Just saying “plus one” now and then doesn’t really add anything.
AI is coming, whether the Yudkowsky crowd and similar cults like it or not. Actually, to a great extent it's already here. Computer programs are already much better than top human chess players. Speech recognition is already in place. Vast databases of knowledge grow by leaps and bounds every day, as does the ability of programs to access that knowledge intelligently.
Is there really anything to fear? I don't think so. Oh, all right, I fear packs of AI robot dogs acting like terminators, but bad guys having superior weaponry is nothing new. I don't fear Skynet, because humans have too much fun shooting off bombs manually to turn the decision over to a computer.
Steve, why does history repeat itself? Is the universe naturally cyclical? I think you're repeating history from my other philosopher for another time, don't you think?
Thank you so much 🙏🏼