Aleksei_Riikonen comments on Should I believe what the SIAI claims? - Less Wrong

23 Post author: XiXiDu 12 August 2010 02:33PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (600)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Aleksei_Riikonen 12 August 2010 06:39:47PM *  3 points [-]

This post makes very weird claims regarding what SIAI's positions would be.

"Spend most on a particular future"? "Eliezer Yudkowsky is the right and only person who should be leading"?

It doesn't at all seem to me that stuff such as these would be SIAI's position. Why doesn't the poster provide references for these weird claims?

Here's a good reference for what SIAI's position actually is:

http://singinst.org/riskintro/index.html

Comment author: XiXiDu 12 August 2010 07:29:23PM *  1 point [-]

Less Wrong Q&A with Eliezer Yudkowsky: Video Answers

Q: The only two legitimate occupations for an intelligent person in our current world? Answer

Q: What's your advice for Less Wrong readers who want to help save the human race? Answer

Comment author: timtyler 21 August 2010 07:09:57PM *  5 points [-]

A) doesn't seem to be quoted verbatim from the supplied reference!

There is some somewhat similar material there - but E.Y. is reading out a question that has been submitted by a reader! Misquoting him while he is quoting someone else doesn't seem to be very fair!

[Edit: please note the parent has been dramatically edited since this response was made]

Comment author: Aleksei_Riikonen 12 August 2010 07:41:15PM 2 points [-]

How do your quotes claim that Eliezer Yudkowsky is the only person who should be leading?

(I would say that factually, there are also other people in leadership positions within SIAI, and Eliezer is extremely glad that this is so, instead of thinking that it should be only him.)

How do they demonstrate that donating to SIAI is "spending on a particular future"?

(I see it as trying to prevent a particular risk.)

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 12 August 2010 07:02:28PM *  1 point [-]

Seconded, plus I don't understand what the link from "worth it" has to do with the topic.

Comment author: XiXiDu 12 August 2010 07:19:38PM *  1 point [-]

I'll let the master himself answer this one:

Fun Theory, for instance: the questions of “What do we actually do all day, if things turn out well?,” “How much fun is there in the universe?,” “Will we ever run out of fun?,” “Are we having fun yet?” and “Could we be having more fun?” In order to answer questions like that, obviously, you need a Theory of Fun.

[...]

The question is: Is this what actually happens to you if you achieve immortality? Because, if that’s as good as it gets, then the people who go around asking “what’s the point?” are quite possibly correct.

Comment author: Aleksei_Riikonen 12 August 2010 07:12:13PM 1 point [-]

From the position paper I linked above, a key quote on what SIAI sees itself as doing:

"We aim to seed the above research programs. We are too small to carry out all the needed research ourselves, but we can get the ball rolling."

The poster makes claims that are completely at odds with even the most basic familiarity with what SIAI's position actually is.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 12 August 2010 09:57:20PM *  0 points [-]

http://singinst.org/riskintro/index.html

By the way, is it linked to from the SIAI site somewhere? It's a good summary, but I only ever saw the direct link (and the page is not in SIAI site format).

Comment author: Aleksei_Riikonen 12 August 2010 10:05:28PM 2 points [-]

It's linked from the sidepanel here at least:

http://singinst.org/overview

But indeed it's not very prominently featured on the site. It's a problem of most of the site having been written substantially earlier than this particular summary, and there not (yet) having been a comprehensive change from that earlier state of how the site is organized.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 12 August 2010 10:11:36PM *  1 point [-]

I see. This part of the site doesn't follow the standard convention of selecting the first sub-page in a category when you click on the category, instead it selects the second, which confused me before. I thought that I was reading "Introduction" when in fact I was reading the next item. Bad design decision.