Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Whispering Earring

croissanthology.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 99 posts

Re: The Whispering Earring

#81

Post by kazinator »

CoopaTroopa wrote: post #4

"The parable of the earring was not about the dangers of using technology that wasn't Truly Part Of You, which would indeed have been the kind of dystopianism I dislike. It was about the dangers of becoming too powerful yourself." https://web.archive.org/web/20121007235422/http://squid314.l...

But before stating that intent, he admits "well, that parable didn't work". The strongest interpretation of which is that the parable he wrote didn't succeed in being about "the dangers of becoming too powerful".

We have to read "was about" as "was (supposed to be) about".

What the parable ends up being about is any consistent interpretation well supported by the actual text of the parable!

In the parable, the Whispering Earring is a kind of character. It has autonomy and agency; a mind of its own, separate from that of the wearer. It generates ideas and suggests them to the wearer, eventually rendering most of their brain unnecessary. (The implication being that the individual, as a sentient being, has wasted away and has been effectively replaced by the host, as if possessed in the classical sense).

Someone who could be just as powerful in making all the right decisions guaranteed to make them happy, but using their own brain instead of taking suggestions from a whispering daemonic oracle, would not waste away and be replaced; their brain would have to be doing remarkable work and developing in the process rather than atrophying.

I suspect that it would actually be very difficult to repair the parable, while retaining the key element of the Whispering Earring as an autonomous entity, into being about "the dangers of becoming too powerful oneself". (Has the author tried?)

Re: The Whispering Earring

#82

Post by gsmt »

This reminds me a lot of what was described in the book "The Feminine Mystique." There, they defined a “problem that has no name” that was the sense of emptiness and dissatisfaction experienced by women who, by all external measures, were living the ideal life: successful, comfortable, with all needs met by their husbands.

Both cases show how following an externally provided script, even one that reliably produces “good” outcomes, can lead to a hollowed-out sense of self

Re: The Whispering Earring

#83

Post by ahazred8ta »

summa_tech wrote: post #3

A distant relative, no doubt, of Stanislaw Lem's "Automatthew's Friend" (1964). A perfectly rational, indestructible, selfless, well-meaning in-ear AI assistant. In the end, out of nothing but the deepest care for its owner's mental state in a hopeless situation, it advocates efficient and quick suicide.

An excerpt: http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=4121

Re: The Whispering Earring

#84

Post by throwanem »

klipt wrote: post #80
throwanem wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I haven't been willing to take you at your word when you showed up to tell me how wrong I am based on nothing but your say-so. Sure, I'll give you that. Were you not expecting to have to convince anyone? If that really is so, then again I have to ask, do you imagine this sort of thing normal? Are you in the habit of letting harangue stand in for conversation in ordinary life also, or is this a special occasion?

Okay, tell me what your moral framework is, and I'll tell you how it's just a variant of utilitarianism.

For the sake of this argument, let's assume my moral framework is identical with that of a priest of Tezcatlipoca, at the height of the Aztec Empire. Astonish me.

Re: The Whispering Earring

#85

Post by rwnspace »

throwanem wrote: post #25
rwnspace wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has some great essays and research pieces and has fostered a generally nice community of people who grew out of LessWrong. There aren't many places online to talk about those things in a certain way without it devolving rapidly.

Strangely, a popular formulation of utilitarian ethics attracts utilitarian ethicists, some of whom were eugenicists and the like already by inclination, the rest merely having become so under the suasion of this fringe theory's false axioms. When your scheme of rules for how human societies should run does nothing to exclude or even discourage the worst atrocities of human history - when that scheme is fairly evalua…

As it happens I'm neither an EA nor much of a utilitarian, in the traditional sense, probably closer to a Christian "post-rat". I'd be hard pressed to say that it's worth killing a bunch of people to say, save the universe. I still have had a good time reading Scott and occasionally engaging with other people in the community.

Re: The Whispering Earring

#86

Post by JohnKemeny »

throwanem wrote: post #84
klipt wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, tell me what your moral framework is, and I'll tell you how it's just a variant of utilitarianism.

For the sake of this argument, let's assume my moral framework is identical with that of a priest of Tezcatlipoca, at the height of the Aztec Empire. Astonish me.

What began as a complaint about HN’s interest in Scott Alexander devolved into a prolonged, hostile, and circular argument about whether certain reproductive choices are a form of eugenics, whether that’s compatible with utilitarianism, and whether utilitarianism itself is morally bankrupt.

Neither side persuades the other, and the thread becomes more about rhetorical sparring than the original topic.

Re: The Whispering Earring

#87

Post by throwanem »

rwnspace wrote: post #85
throwanem wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strangely, a popular formulation of utilitarian ethics attracts utilitarian ethicists, some of whom were eugenicists and the like already by inclination, the rest merely having become so under the suasion of this fringe theory's false axioms. When your scheme of rules for how human societies should run does nothing to exclude or even discourage the worst atrocities of human history - when that scheme is fairly evalua…

As it happens I'm neither an EA nor much of a utilitarian, in the traditional sense, probably closer to a Christian "post-rat". I'd be hard pressed to say that it's worth killing a bunch of people to say, save the universe. I still have had a good time reading Scott and occasionally engaging with other people in the community.

> I'd be hard pressed to say that it's worth killing a bunch of people to say, save the universe.

Well, thank God for that, at least. Do you honestly not realize how you sound? That's a genuine question, if not an especially friendly one. You can answer it out loud if you like, but no one really needs you to.

I strongly suspect we agree on nearly nothing, including the moral value of your desiderata. But it makes some sense out of how people in this community go dangerous, if that's the sort of "architecture astronaut" philosophy you people are pairing with the assumption you can think yourselves out of anything and everything including human imperfection and emotion. The lack of oxygen up there has gone to your head.

Re: The Whispering Earring

#88

Post by throwanem »

JohnKemeny wrote: post #86
throwanem wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the sake of this argument, let's assume my moral framework is identical with that of a priest of Tezcatlipoca, at the height of the Aztec Empire. Astonish me.

What began as a complaint about HN’s interest in Scott Alexander devolved into a prolonged, hostile, and circular argument about whether certain reproductive choices are a form of eugenics, whether that’s compatible with utilitarianism, and whether utilitarianism itself is morally bankrupt. Neither side persuades the other, and the thread becomes more about rhetorical sparring than the original topic.

> There aren't many places online to talk about those things in a certain way without it devolving rapidly.

Now we have an illustration of precisely what that means, more or less entirely in spite of those irritated into furnishing it.

Oh, I understand why rhetoric gets a bad name. No fool ever likes being made to look foolish. That's worth doing, in public, as often as possible, with the kind of person it takes to look utilitarianism full in the face, 'repugnant conclusion' and all, and still embrace it.

Re: The Whispering Earring

#89

Post by rwnspace »

throwanem wrote: post #87
rwnspace wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As it happens I'm neither an EA nor much of a utilitarian, in the traditional sense, probably closer to a Christian "post-rat". I'd be hard pressed to say that it's worth killing a bunch of people to say, save the universe. I still have had a good time reading Scott and occasionally engaging with other people in the community.

> I'd be hard pressed to say that it's worth killing a bunch of people to say, save the universe. Well, thank God for that, at least. Do you honestly not realize how you sound? That's a genuine question, if not an especially friendly one. You can answer it out loud if you like, but no one really needs you to. I strongly suspect we agree on nearly nothing, including the moral value of your desiderata. But it makes som…

While I'm detecting you feel strongly about trolley problems, I think it's fine to discuss them, and I really don't see why you need to try and shame me for providing an example of where I tend to sit on them.

Re: The Whispering Earring

#90

Post by throwanem »

rwnspace wrote: post #89
throwanem wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd be hard pressed to say that it's worth killing a bunch of people to say, save the universe. Well, thank God for that, at least. Do you honestly not realize how you sound? That's a genuine question, if not an especially friendly one. You can answer it out loud if you like, but no one really needs you to. I strongly suspect we agree on nearly nothing, including the moral value of your desiderata. But it makes som…

While I'm detecting you feel strongly about trolley problems, I think it's fine to discuss them, and I really don't see why you need to try and shame me for providing an example of where I tend to sit on them.

[dead]
Post reply on HN