A lengthy treatise on esoteric interpretations and the edge-case maths of effective altruism, which 'proves' it's evil. HN will love this one!
Reminds me of this guy- Adjusts glasses "Heh Heh, nice moral standpoint you got there. It'd be a shame if I applied this super specific edge case to it."
I would say misguided. More of a intellectualism trap than evil trap.
It is basically the ultimate way for a smart person to:
- Feel like a hero (I'm doing this for your grand-grand-grand-grand...grand-children)
- Feel like an intellectual giant (long rationalizing posts with other smart people confirming you re smart)
- Not do actual real work of heroism
You can write blog posts, tweets, make youtube videos, ramble on forums and lesswrong, yet still feel like "you are saving the world" with your intellect.
It's a trap that I've seen many "smart kids" fall into their late adolescence, myself included, until you realize "oh this makes me a shitty person" and develop empathy for their existing fellow beings.
I wonder if lots of EA folks have just rationalized their empathy away because if you're smart, that is what the world implies you should do - "think logically, not emotionally! Be like Spock! Be like dDta!"
One part I do agree with is the "no true scotsman fallacy" that EA and AI doomers seem to have developed.
Any and all arguments get ended with, as author rightfully calls it, "rhetorical judo moves". And lots of people belonging to this world view cannot even argument their sides without just referring to source material ("ah you don't understand it, read these books and these posts and these articles to understand"), which I derive a few views of them from:
- They often do not understand the source material and are using it to justify their selfish behavior
- They believe/act like they are inherently superior because "you obviously haven't properly read the material if you don't agree, read it again", treating it as impossible to read and understand this material but not agree with it.
- They deflect everything with an impossible possibility that can yes, technically, happen, but technically also a piano can fall from space onto their head while they walk the street because what if Elon launches a piano into orbit for fun one day?
Ironically, it also comes to a full loop - the people who discount religion have turned rationality into a religion, treating impossible as possible, treating fantasy as reality and deflecting anyone to read the source material because it all says so in the source.
It won't impact my happiness, but for good of future generations, EA dismantling itself will be an overall gain on human society once extrapolated over millions of years.
I don't get it. Why is there always longtermism competing with real current issues in terms political discourse and economic resources topic brought up whenever any EA proposed cause is discussed? For one thing, many of their causes actually align with the UN's global concerns, and besides EA, I haven't seen places generate as deep and innovative discussions, as well as got actionable points like them. I don't believing in their maths, and frankly I think it's hilariously wrong, but I appreciate the perspective. I do think AI existential risks should not be understated and it's one and same issue, that's on a continuum from the current woes. You don't calculate over 100 misalignment scenarios that causes extinction event when you have current AI which is pretty much misaligned. The unemployment, addiction, deepfake, mind manipulation issues today grows into total disempowerment of humans in the future. The power grab and future technofeudalism is already implied from todays AI arms race and oligarchy. To truly appreciate the danger you have to understand both. There are few people understand the gravity of such issue and they tend to get lost in the details, thats why a perspective is needed. And it to be needs more than a general sentiment or virtue signaling, there have to be plans for that.
A lengthy treatise on esoteric interpretations and the edge-case maths of effective altruism, which 'proves' it's evil. HN will love this one!
Reminds me of this guy- Adjusts glasses "Heh Heh, nice moral standpoint you got there. It'd be a shame if I applied this super specific edge case to it."
I wouldn't say evil.
I would say misguided. More of a intellectualism trap than evil trap.
It is basically the ultimate way for a smart person to:
- Feel like a hero (I'm doing this for your grand-grand-grand-grand...grand-children)
- Feel like an intellectual giant (long rationalizing posts with other smart people confirming you re smart)
- Not do actual real work of heroism
You can write blog posts, tweets, make youtube videos, ramble on forums and lesswrong, yet still feel like "you are saving the world" with your intellect.
It's a trap that I've seen many "smart kids" fall into their late adolescence, myself included, until you realize "oh this makes me a shitty person" and develop empathy for their existing fellow beings.
I wonder if lots of EA folks have just rationalized their empathy away because if you're smart, that is what the world implies you should do - "think logically, not emotionally! Be like Spock! Be like dDta!"
One part I do agree with is the "no true scotsman fallacy" that EA and AI doomers seem to have developed.
Any and all arguments get ended with, as author rightfully calls it, "rhetorical judo moves". And lots of people belonging to this world view cannot even argument their sides without just referring to source material ("ah you don't understand it, read these books and these posts and these articles to understand"), which I derive a few views of them from:
- They often do not understand the source material and are using it to justify their selfish behavior
- They believe/act like they are inherently superior because "you obviously haven't properly read the material if you don't agree, read it again", treating it as impossible to read and understand this material but not agree with it.
- They deflect everything with an impossible possibility that can yes, technically, happen, but technically also a piano can fall from space onto their head while they walk the street because what if Elon launches a piano into orbit for fun one day?
Ironically, it also comes to a full loop - the people who discount religion have turned rationality into a religion, treating impossible as possible, treating fantasy as reality and deflecting anyone to read the source material because it all says so in the source.
It won't impact my happiness, but for good of future generations, EA dismantling itself will be an overall gain on human society once extrapolated over millions of years.
I don't get it. Why is there always longtermism competing with real current issues in terms political discourse and economic resources topic brought up whenever any EA proposed cause is discussed? For one thing, many of their causes actually align with the UN's global concerns, and besides EA, I haven't seen places generate as deep and innovative discussions, as well as got actionable points like them. I don't believing in their maths, and frankly I think it's hilariously wrong, but I appreciate the perspective. I do think AI existential risks should not be understated and it's one and same issue, that's on a continuum from the current woes. You don't calculate over 100 misalignment scenarios that causes extinction event when you have current AI which is pretty much misaligned. The unemployment, addiction, deepfake, mind manipulation issues today grows into total disempowerment of humans in the future. The power grab and future technofeudalism is already implied from todays AI arms race and oligarchy. To truly appreciate the danger you have to understand both. There are few people understand the gravity of such issue and they tend to get lost in the details, thats why a perspective is needed. And it to be needs more than a general sentiment or virtue signaling, there have to be plans for that.