Live data from Hacker News

Guess I'm a rationalist now

scottaaronson.blog

821–830 of 1001 posts

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#821
Are you really concerned about the consequences of AI?

Then, empower UN-like organizations to oversee the use of technology - like the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission.

And, if you're even further concerned, put in place mechanisms that guarantee that the productivity gains, yields, and GDP increases obtained via the new technology of AI are distributed and enjoyed by all of the living population with a minimum of fairness.

For some reason, specially this last bit, doesn't really fly with our friends, The Rationalists. I wonder why...

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#822

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They remind me of the "Effective Altruism" crowd who get completely wound up in these hypothetical logical thought exercises and end up coming to insane conclusions that they feel trapped in because they got there using pure logic. Not realizing that their initial conditions were highly artificial so any conclusion they reach is only of academic value. There is a term for this. "Getting stuck up your own butt." It wo…

> their initial conditions were highly artificial There has to be (or ought to be) a name for this kind of epistemological fallacy, where in pursuit of truth, the pursuit of logical sophistication and soundness between starting assumptions (or first principles) and conclusions becomes functionally way more important than carefully evaluating and thoughtfully choosing the right starting assumptions (and being willing…

Maybe "appeal to authority" covers it. The "rationality" or "intellect" or even "brilliance" of some claim's originator are fun things to talk about. But (even taking the claims at face value), those things aren't logically connected to whether the claim is actually true.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#824
post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intelligence and rational thought is useful, but like any strategy it has its tradeoffs and limitations. No amount of intelligence can overcome the chaos of long time horizons, especially when we're talking about human civilization. IMHO it's reasonable to pick a long-term problem/risk and focus on solving it. But it's pure hubris to think rationality will give you anything approaching high confidence of what the big…

I think one can levy a much more specific critique of rationalism: rationalism is in some sense self-defeating. If you are rational you will necessarily conclude that the fundamental dynamic that drives the (interesting parts of) the universe is Darwinian evolution, which is not rational. It blindly selects for reproductive fitness at the expense of all else. If you are a gene, you can probably produce more offspring…

Couple of point to that, mainly why should one have to follow darwinian evolution just because we are a product of that. It's similar to the natural law argument against homosexuality, that unnatural sex is wrong. The argument against that is natural biology does not inform what is good or what we should do.

I'm sure you would be able to predict what a rationalise will say when you ask them what future they prefer: one where we maximises for the number of humans or one with fewer humans but better lives

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#825
I cannot falsify the thesis that so-called "Rationalism" and "Effective Altruism" is - in practice - just folklore so that top-percenters don't pay taxes and feel good about themselves.

As the least worse solution to maximize Social Utility has long been invented: Democracy and political action.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#827

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They remind me of the "Effective Altruism" crowd who get completely wound up in these hypothetical logical thought exercises and end up coming to insane conclusions that they feel trapped in because they got there using pure logic. Not realizing that their initial conditions were highly artificial so any conclusion they reach is only of academic value. Do you have examples of that? I have a different perception, mo…

As Adam Becker shows in his book, EAs started out being reasonable "give to charity as much as you can, and research which charities do the most good" but have gotten into absurdities like "it is more important to fund rockets than help starving people or prevent malaria because maybe an asteroid will hit the Earth, killing everyone, starving or not".

There's a lot of weird ideas on the fringes of EA...but they are on the fringes. Everyone is eye rolling at shrimp guy.

https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/5JB4dn7hEvZCYDvCe/a-very-...

https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/MHBJ436AiKyN83DCB/thinkin...

https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/58ajesm2C38wi3WSJ/insect-...

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#828

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rationalists are constantly falling into ditches that actual philosophers crawled out of centuries ago. But what's even more exasperating is that they do it in tendentious disquisitions that take thousands of wasted words to get.. to.. the.. everloving.. point.

> they do it in tendentious disquisitions that take thousands of wasted words to get.. to.. the.. everloving.. point. Right, and "actual philosophers" like Sartre and Heidegger _never_ did that. Ever. "Being and Nothingness" and "Being and Time" are both short enough to fit into a couple tweets, right?

Thanks for reminding me that I left out their unjustified sense of significance and self-importance, thinking that their sophomoric ramblings are somehow comparable to Sartre's or Heidegger's writings.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#829
post #39

I've never thought ill of Scott Aaronson and have often admired him and his work when I stumble across it. However, reading this article about all these people at their "Galt's Gultch", I thought — "oh, I guess he's a rhinoceros now" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros_(play) Here's a bad joke for you all — What's the difference between a "rationalist" and "rationalizer"? Only the incentives.

«What's the difference between a "rationalist" and "rationalizer"? Only the incentives.»

Bad joke? That phrase should be framed in big print.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#830
post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a mistake I'm making. Assuming you're talking about bog-standard effective altruists---by (claiming to) value the suffering of people far away as the same as those nearby, they're discounting the people around them heavily compared to other people. Compare to anyone else who values their friends and family and community far more than those far away. Perhaps they're not discounting them to less-than-parity-…

> they're discounting the people around them heavily compared to other people This statement of yours makes no sense. EAs by definition are attempting to remove the innate bias that discounts people far away by instead saying all lives are of equal worth. >turning them into a math problem that assigns no special responsibility to the people around you All lives are equal isn't a math problem. "Fuck it blow up the for…

> If $100 can save 1 life 10 blocks away from me or 5 lives in the next town over, what kind as asshole chooses to let 5 people die vs 1?

The thing about strict-utilitarian-morality is that it can't comprehend any other kind of morality, because it evaluates the morality of... moralities... on its own utilitarian basis. And then of course it wins over the others: it's evaluating them using itself!

There are entirely different ethical systems that are not utilitarian which (it seems) most people hold and innately use (the "personal morality" I'm talking about in my earlier post). They are hard to comprehend rationally, but that doesn't make them less real. Strict-utilitarianism seems "correct" in a way that personal morality does not because you are working from a premise "only things that I can understand like math problems can be true". But what I observe in the world is that people's fear of the rationalist/EA mindset comes from the fact that they empirically find this way of thinking to be insidious. Their morality specifically disagrees with that way of thinking: it is not the case that truth comes from scrutable math problems; that is not the point of moral action to them.

The EA philosophy may be put as "well sure but you could change to the math-problem version, it's better". But what I observe is that people largely don't want to. There is a purpose to their choice of moral framework; it's not that they're looking at them all in a vacuum and picking the most mathematically sound one. They have an intrinsic need to keep the people around them safe and they're picking the one that does that best. EA on the other hand is great if everyone around you is safe and you have lots of extra spending money and what you're maximizing for is the feeling of being a good person. But it is not the only way to conceive of moral action, and if you think it is, you're too inside of it to see out.

I'll reiterate I am trying to describe what I see happening when people resist and protest rationalism (and why their complaints "miss" slightly---because IMO they don't have the language to talk about this stuff but they are still afraid of it). I'm sympathetic to EA largely, but I think it misses important things that are crippling it, of the variety above: an inability to recognize other people's moralities and needs and fears doesn't make them go away; it just makes them hate you.

Post reply on HN