The issue is that the effective altruism crowd are focused exclusively on AI safety, at least in what they publish online. If they talked about all possible threats to humanity and how to solve them, from AI, to climate change, to nuclear bombs, to asteroids, to disease, they would be an interesting and important group. They don't. They hardly talk about anything else except AI. From the outside it looks a lot like a…
You might want to get familiar with what effective altruism actually focuses on. https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/introduction-to-e... https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JmmA2Mf5GrY9D6nQD/four-focus... https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/best-charities-to-donate-to-...
what’s so bad about reading some Harry Potter fanfic in the polycule?
I'm assuming you read it, so why does Harry Potter (a 11 year old in 1991/1992) think polyamory might (or probably would be, looking at the text right now) be a good idea in a future where people live a long time, in said fanfic? I think it's pretty dubious, but the other 11 and 12 year old girls in the same fanfic also seem to be fans of the idea of yaoi like situations, so all semblances of actual historical events are probably gone at that point. This is the UK in 1992, not the US West Coast. To give my personal impression, when I read some science fiction that had some suggestions of polyamory in it in a similar situation, I did not think it was a good idea. I know the whole thing is essentially a morality story and for various plot and author-community communication reasons the "Harry Potter" in the story does not behave like J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter with different adoptive parents nor like any person, child or otherwise, could behave in 1991 and 1992 within the realm of probability, but I think the whole thing could be done a lot better even given the various constraints. How about he actually does science experiments for more than two chapters instead of going on stupid adventures that should probably be left to the JKR books. Cut the time travel as well, figure out some other reason for constraint solving to show up.
It went above their head because it was poor writing in their view? Why would you think taste in writing has anything to do with their ability to understand the points the writer was trying to make? This seems unecessary and you are probably capable of coming up with a more interesting response.
It was supposed to be a flawed protagonist.
At the end Harry is basically a Messiah that can order the magical world to provide emergency medical aid to everyone in the whole world and turns Hermione into basically an angel; not really seeing the story itself saying he did anything wrong...
AI safety is an apocalypse cult and we should recognize that everyone who has ever been in an apocalypse cult thinks that "no, this time it's really the end of the world". Everyone who believes crazy shit thinks they're being reasonable, so just because we're super sure we're being reasonable doesn't mean what we believe isn't crazy. Do we believe that we alone, of all people who have believed in the coming end, have…
"Apocalypse cults are always wrong, AI safety is an apocalypse cult, therefore it is (probably) wrong" is an argument which really only betrays the ignorance of the speaker regarding the specifics of the AI doomer argument. Why are apocalypse cults always wrong? Do the same specific reasons apply to the doomers here?
AI safety is an apocalypse cult and we should recognize that everyone who has ever been in an apocalypse cult thinks that "no, this time it's really the end of the world". Everyone who believes crazy shit thinks they're being reasonable, so just because we're super sure we're being reasonable doesn't mean what we believe isn't crazy. Do we believe that we alone, of all people who have believed in the coming end, have…
Personally, I find the AI safety arguments sound pretty far-fetched, but I can’t come up with solid arguments against them. Also, when I look for a good ”debunking”, I don’t find anything. Mostly all I find are mockery, ad-hominem and the like. Frankly, the people who argue climate change isn’t real do a better job than the people who argue AI risk isn’t real, and they’re wrong!
What have they actually done for AI safety? Written essays and held symposiums in grand Wytham Abbey. Attracted followers and forum posts. Where's their git repo?
AI safety is an apocalypse cult and we should recognize that everyone who has ever been in an apocalypse cult thinks that "no, this time it's really the end of the world". Everyone who believes crazy shit thinks they're being reasonable, so just because we're super sure we're being reasonable doesn't mean what we believe isn't crazy. Do we believe that we alone, of all people who have believed in the coming end, have…
Absolutely agree.
My biggest problem with AI safety is that, simply, the problem they envisage doesn't exist yet (generally, at a minimum, relying on the existence of "AGI"). Hence discussions about it have to make a huge amount of assumptions about a whole range of aspects of what the AI threat will be - what the AI will be capable of, what it's impact will be - before getting on to what possible solutions might be relevant to preventing it. But given the first two are so undefined, the later is pure speculation - one that is difficult to criticise directly, because any specific critisms can usually be easy deflected by adjusting any of the above assumptions without making a substantial change to the "inevitable" conclusion.
That's why it feels like an apocalypse cult to me - it's a conclusion, that has little strong evidence today, stacked on top of a constantly shifting set of assumptions, allowing adherents to avoid backing their arguments with evidence.
I was not aware that there is an Atlas Shrugged-length Harry Potter fanfiction about rationality. Learn something new every day!
It’s a very, very entertaining read, although it loses its way and loses steam a bit as it goes on
I think the first chapter is really fun, then it loses steam and by something like chapter six it has fukky jettisoned the promise chapter one sets up and it is strictly in "ok to terrible" territory for the rest of it.
Personally, I find the AI safety arguments sound pretty far-fetched, but I can’t come up with solid arguments against them. Also, when I look for a good ”debunking”, I don’t find anything. Mostly all I find are mockery, ad-hominem and the like. Frankly, the people who argue climate change isn’t real do a better job than the people who argue AI risk isn’t real, and they’re wrong!
I don't think it's impossible to come up with arguments against them. For one thing, extrapolating the current gradual rate of progress forwards means that we will get to see several minor "intelligence spills" before the hypothetical big and last one, and by observing what went wrong, humanity will have the opportunity to come up with solutions. Since very smart human beings have in history done a lot of damage, but…
I'm pretty sure they have stock arguments against what you said, even from people like Nick Bostrom who I think have a bit better handle on the situation. In that vein though, I think making the world more robust in general might be a way forward. Having multiple broad spectrum anti-virals for every class of virus ready to go and stockpiled, having flexible on-shore manufacturing infrastructure, with supply chains that are on the same continent or at least have massive component stockpiling on national levels, and having smart and vigilant people running these systems from the very top down to the janitors and security guards. Make a world where the machine stopping because a few agents, human or otherwise, doing something unexpected, much less likely. At least to the point EAs can start buying mosquito nets again.
What is one or two rapes or sexual assaults against trillions of future lives? With sufficient future sight and the power of the exponent > 1, one can justify many present actions. Sadly, the EAs are small thinkers. True grand scale actions require truly grand visions https://cosmicbraintrust.org/
what an evil and disgusting comment.
I deserve this since sarcastic comments are really the lowest class of Internet comments.
"Apocalypse cults are always wrong, AI safety is an apocalypse cult, therefore it is (probably) wrong" is an argument which really only betrays the ignorance of the speaker regarding the specifics of the AI doomer argument. Why are apocalypse cults always wrong? Do the same specific reasons apply to the doomers here?
> Why are apocalypse cults always wrong? because we are still here
That's the consequence of them being wrong, not the cause..