The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence • Hacker News Board

Re: The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

#141

Post by estimator7292 » Mon, Apr 13, 2026, 9:38 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #53

MostlyStable wrote: post #8

It is completely coherent to both think that an extremely bad thing is coming, and yet that does not justify any particular action. "The ends don't justify the means" and literal entire religions have been built on this concept. It is not irrational or incoherent to believe that even something as serious as extinction does not justify arbitrary action. Someone _may_ decide that it does, but it is not a necessary conc…

The older I get, the more I get the sneaking suspicion that statements like "the ends don't justify the means" and "violence is always the wrong answer" are, at best, wildly logically inconsistent in any society at any time, and at worst, designed to ensure only a very few people in power can commit violence. An ongoing conflict has resulted in the violent deaths of literally many thousands of children. The people wh…

It's almost like the real world just doesn't deal in absolutes. For any absolute blanket rule you'd like to apply to the entire universe, there's a practically infinite number of exceptions and edge cases.

The real world is subjective and messy. Life is an endless series of edge cases and unique situations. The real world also has no requirement to be logically consistent or in any way rational. Every rule has exceptions, no set of rules and codes can cover every situation.

The nature of life is that your personal moral code will break down at some point. Your personal sense of right and wrong is not a universal truth, and you will be faced with situations that challenge your morals.

A wise person understands this fact, and a mature person can handle the messy reality of morals. An immature person thinks their personal moral code is universal truth and must never be questioned.

My morals tend toward Buddhist views, but I've been around long enough to learn the compromises that reality requires. Violence must always be avoided at all costs, but sometimes it is necessary. Occasionally violence is good. There are no hard rules, reality just plain and simple does not work like that.

Re: The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

#142

Post by benj111 » Mon, Apr 13, 2026, 9:55 PM UTC

Well. Where to start.

As someone who has been let down by the judiciary and many other state institutions, I do have the very strong feeling that perhaps direct action is needed, and that perhaps I wouldn't be in the position I was, if the powers that be took that risk into account. But then don't I, in some ways become a terrorist* in doing those things, threatening those things, or making those things a reality? and there's the question of what message gets through, which isn't necessarily the one I want to convey.

*In a very broad way. I'm not thinking anything in particular, just the rationality of introducing a cost to them for their failures. Any form of protest I suppose is coercive.

Re: The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

#143

Post by coldtea » Mon, Apr 13, 2026, 10:01 PM UTC

MostlyStable wrote: post #8

It is completely coherent to both think that an extremely bad thing is coming, and yet that does not justify any particular action. "The ends don't justify the means" and literal entire religions have been built on this concept. It is not irrational or incoherent to believe that even something as serious as extinction does not justify arbitrary action. Someone _may_ decide that it does, but it is not a necessary conc…

>It is completely coherent to both think that an extremely bad thing is coming, and yet that does not justify any particular action.

Yes, it's called "fatalism".

Re: The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

#144

Post by bigbadfeline » Mon, Apr 13, 2026, 10:05 PM UTC

zahlman wrote: post #131

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The older I get, the more I get the sneaking suspicion that statements like "the ends don't justify the means" and "violence is always the wrong answer" are, at best, wildly logically inconsistent in any society at any time, and at worst, designed to ensure only a very few people in power can commit violence. An ongoing conflict has resulted in the violent deaths of literally many thousands of children. The people wh…

> I just don't understand why we have all these adages to convince people that "violence is always wrong", while I'm sure some at least some of the people who say that are actively engaged in building machines designed to kill people. First: because trusted people having such weaponry is, in expected value, believed to lead to less total violence. Second: because not all such violence is part of what you presumably h…

> First: because trusted people having such weaponry is, in expected value, believed to lead to less total violence.

Unfortunately "trusted people" don't grow on trees... but those who do grow to the highest positions of power, with the most destructive weaponry under their control, ask for trust with stuff like: "No foreign wars", "I'll end that conflict on day one"... "after bringing prices back down".

With that said, changing the conversation from violence to trust in the ideas and people who control it, is a worthwhile endeavor.

>> The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

That's quite backwards, violence is an irrational response to today's problems. Demonizing the discussion of those problems as "violence" can't be trusted - if the discussion stops, a rational solution will never be found.

Re: The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

#145

Post by estimator7292 » Mon, Apr 13, 2026, 10:08 PM UTC

Never forget that those with the power to do incredible violence against entire populations are the ones most heavily pushing the line that "violence is never, ever acceptable for any reason".

The nature of the real world is that no set of moral rules applies to every situation. Our universe is not one that deals in absolutes. Your personal moral code will be challenged with exceptional situations. Growing up is learning to deal with the fact that life always, always forces us to compromise.

A robust moral code is not one with strict, unbreakable rules applied blindly to the entire world. A robust moral code is one that guides you in exceptional situations. Morality is not law, it is making the best decision you can in any given situation.

The nature of humanity, the world, and our history is that sometimes violence is required. Sometimes the most morally correct thing you can do is take up arms and defend your people.

If someone is trying to convince you that there are absolute moral laws that apply to everyone everywhere, think very carefully about what it is they want you to believe and why. There is almost certainly a motive behind that statement.

Most importantly, one should never take moral advice as unquestioned law. Morality is something you discover for yourself, it cannot and must not be prescribed. History exists to teach us lessons like this. Read any era from any culture, learn how other people deal with moral questions in exceptional circumstances. Form your own opinions of what we've done right or wrong. There are no absolutes and morality is individual. You must find your own sense of right and wrong.

Re: The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

#146

Post by Aurornis » Mon, Apr 13, 2026, 10:13 PM UTC

hollerith wrote: post #119

Aurornis wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone willing to read that wall of text should also read Yudkowsky's original piece on the topic: https://time.com/6266923/ai-eliezer-yudkowsky-open-letter-no... The inflammatory conclusion of his 2023 writing was that we need to "shut it all down", escalating to bombing datacenters: > be willing to destroy a rogue datacenter by airstrike. Now that someone who was an open follower of his words tried to bomb Sam Altm…

You doubt that Yudkowsky "was only advocating for state-sponsored airstrikes, not civilian airstrikes, bombs, or attacks." Let's let the reader decide. In the article, the string "kill" occurs twice, both times describing what some future AI would do if the AI labs remain free to keep on their present course. The strings "bomb" and "attack" never occur. The strings "strike" and "destroy" occurs once each, and this qu…

> The strings "bomb" and "attack" never occur.

What do you think an "airstrike" is, then?

Trying to argue that certain strings don't occur in the page is the kind of argument that gets brought out when someone is desperate for any technicality to avoid having to concede a point.

This level of weaponized pedantry is what makes trying to debate anything with LessWrong-style rationalists so impossible: There's always another volley of gish gallop to be fired at you when you get too close to anything that goes against their accepted narratives.

Re: The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

#147

Post by arduanika » Mon, Apr 13, 2026, 10:18 PM UTC

handoflixue wrote: post #78

arduanika wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is true that only Yudkowsky gets to say what the rational conclusion of his ideas are. Nobody else gets to speculate. Only the pope of rationalism, because he's the rational one here. See? It's right there in the name! > this piece of slop Citation needed. Or maybe we need to update the title of that children's book for internet arguments: Everyone Who Disagrees With Me Is Slop. The Yud post you linked is not slop…

I think it's rather relevant that the community itself rejects the logic you're trying to impose on it. You can straw-man any sort of conclusion on to any sort of philosophy. This will not actually help you much at all if you're trying to predict what people will actually do. If the only people that reach your conclusion are ones that don't actually subscribe to the philosophy, then it doesn't matter, because no one…

> "If the only people that reach your conclusion are ones that don't actually subscribe to the philosophy, then it doesn't matter, because no one is actually acting on those conclusions."

What an odd thing to say right after young Mr. Moreno-Gama reached that conclusion and did subscribe to the philosophy, when it does matter, because he did actually act on those conclusions.

How odd to introduce a hypothetical that amounts to, "what if this philosophy didn't ever lead to violence?", right after it did.

Or are you trying to pull a No True Scotsman on me here?

Re: The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

#148

Post by sylos » Mon, Apr 13, 2026, 10:26 PM UTC

pembrook wrote: post #135

jjk166 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The is just survivorship bias. Violence sits at the root of ALL human societies. The vast majority throughout history have failed or are currently failing. That only strengthens the argument that violence is sometimes the answer. It doesn't matter that it's not always the right answer, the fact is sometimes it has been, and no society has ever managed to survive without choosing it at some point or another. Indeed,…

Sure, you can't monopolize violence under the state (and enforce laws) without the state demonstrating its willingness to use said violence (ie. forcibly put people who violate in prison or use actual violence against them if they resist). But OP was referring to political violence...which...how do I put this delicately...let's just say political polarization has led certain very-online members of the US populist-lef…

My guy, the vast majority of political violence is committed by the right. It's not zero from the left, but it is much less.

Re: The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

#149

Post by arduanika » Mon, Apr 13, 2026, 10:37 PM UTC

kelseyfrog wrote: post #69

arduanika wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am aware of their arguments, yes, but what I'm objecting to is that you're bringing this irrelevant hobbyhorse into a discussion of a truly fringe ideology. We're not talking about a classic G&P-style issue where the voters and the elites disagree. Nobody cares for the AI doomers -- not elites, not voters, nobody. When you talk about "participatory democracy" in a thread like this, you are enabling them in their de…

> Nobody cares for the AI doomers Which is precisely why they've resorted to violence. We can do better than denigrating positions as "hobbyhorse." HN deserves better than that.

Fair enough. Retry: What I'm objecting to is your brilliant, insightful point, to which you are attached enough that you've injected it into this thread where it is, by your own admission, irrelevant. They're resorting to violence because they're unpopular, not because democracy failed to do its job here.

Re: The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

#150

Post by hollerith » Mon, Apr 13, 2026, 10:42 PM UTC

Aurornis wrote: post #146

hollerith wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You doubt that Yudkowsky "was only advocating for state-sponsored airstrikes, not civilian airstrikes, bombs, or attacks." Let's let the reader decide. In the article, the string "kill" occurs twice, both times describing what some future AI would do if the AI labs remain free to keep on their present course. The strings "bomb" and "attack" never occur. The strings "strike" and "destroy" occurs once each, and this qu…

> The strings "bomb" and "attack" never occur. What do you think an "airstrike" is, then? Trying to argue that certain strings don't occur in the page is the kind of argument that gets brought out when someone is desperate for any technicality to avoid having to concede a point. This level of weaponized pedantry is what makes trying to debate anything with LessWrong-style rationalists so impossible: There's always an…

You were trying to get people to view what EY wrote in the time.com article as an encouragement to engage in criminal violence (as opposed to state-sponsored violence a la an airstrike on a data center) such as the firebombing of Sam's home when in actuality (both before and after the publication of the time.com article) EY has explicitly argued against doing any crimes particularly violent crimes against the AI enterprise.

Knowing that most readers do not have time to read the entire article, I brought up how many times various strings occur in the article to make it less likely in the reader's eyes that there are passages in the article other than the one passage I quoted that could possibly be interpreted as advocating criminal violence. I.e., I brought it up to explain why I quoted the 3 (contiguous) paragraphs I quoted, but not any of the other paragraphs.

In finding and selecting those 3 paragraphs, I was doing your work for you since if this were a perfectly efficient and fair debate, the burden of providing quotes to support your assertion that EY somehow condones the firebombing of Sam's home would fall on you.