= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
XiXiDu comments on Should I believe what the SIAI claims? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (600)
I thought about that too. But many people outside this community suspect me, as they often state, to be intelligent and educated. And I mainly try to talk to people in the academics. You won't believe that even I am able to make them think that I'm one of them, up to the point of correcting errors in their calculations (it happened). Many haven't even heard about Bayesian inference by the way...
The way I introduce people to this is not by telling them about the risks of AGI but rather linking them up to specific articles on lesswrong.com or telling them about how the SIAI tries to develop ethical decision making etc.
I've grown up in a family of Jehovah's Witnesses, I know how to start selling bullshit. Not that the SIAI is bullshit, but I'd never use words like 'Singularity' while promoting it to people I don't know.
Many people know about the transhumanist/singularity fraction already and think it is complete nonsense, so I often can only improve their opinion.
There are people teaching on university level that told me I convinced them that he (EY) is to be taken seriously.
What you state is good evidence that you are not one of those too stupid people I was talking about (even though you have managed to not understand what SIAI is saying very well). Thanks for presenting the evidence, and correcting my suspicion that someone on your level of non-comprehension would usually end up doing more harm than good.
Although I personally don't care much if I'm called stupid, if I think it is justified, I doubt this attitude is very appealing to most people.
Where do you draw the line between being stupid and simply uneducated or uninformed?
I've never read up on their program in the first place. When thinking about turning those comments the OP is based on into a top-level post I have been pondering much longer about the title than the rest of what I said until I became too lazy and simply picked the SIAI as punching bag to direct my questions at. I thought it would sufficiently work to steer some emotions. But after all that was most of what it did accomplish, rather than some answers.
What I really was on about was the attitude of many people here, especially regarding the posts related to the Roko-deletion-incident. I was struck by the apparent impact it had. It was not just considered to be worth sacrificing freedom of speech for it but people, including some working for the SIAI, actually had nightmares and suffered psychological trauma. I think I understood the posts and comments, as some told me over private message after inquiring about my knowledge, but however couldn't believe that something that far would be considered to be reasonably evidence-based to be worried to such an extent.
But inquiring about that would have turned the attention back to the relevant content. And after all I wanted to find out if such reactions are justified before deciding to spread the content anyway.
You admit you've never bothered to read up on what SIAI is about in the first place. Don't be surprised if people don't have the best possible attitude if despite this you want them to spend a significant amount of time explaining to you personally the very same content that is already available but you just haven't bothered to read.
Might as well link again the one page that I recommend as the starting point in getting to know what it is exactly that SIAI argues:
http://singinst.org/riskintro/index.html
I also think it's weird that you've actually donated money to SIAI, despite not having really looked into what it is about and how credible the arguments are. I personally happen to think that SIAI is very much worth supporting, but there doesn't seem to be any way how you could have known that before making your donations, and so it's just luck that it actually wasn't a weird cult that your way of making decisions lead you to give money to.
(And part of the reason I'm being this blunt with you is that I've formed the impression that you won't take it in a very negative way, in the way that many people would. And on a personal level, I actually like you, and think we'd probably get along very well if we were to meet IRL.)
I've actually this little crazy conspiracy theory in my head that EY is such a smart fellow that he was able to fool a bunch of nonconformists to make him live of their donations.
Why I donate despite that? I've also donated money to Peter Watts getting into the claws of the American justice. Wikipedia, TrueCrypt, the Kahn Academy and many more organisations and people. Why? They make me happy. And there's lots of cool stuff coming from EY, whether he's a cult leader or not.
I'd probably be more excited if it turned out to be a cult and donate even more. That be hilarious. On the other hand I suspect Scientology not be to a cult. I think they are just making fun of religion and at the same time are some really selfish bastards who live of the money of people dumb enough to actually think they are serious. If they told me this, I'd join.
SCIENTOLOGY IS DANGEROUS. Scientology is not a joke and joining them is not something to be joked about. The fifth level of precaution is absolutely required in all dealings with the Church of Scientology and its members. A few minutes of research with Google will turn up extraordinarily serious allegations against the Church of Scientology and its top leadership, including allegations of brainwashing, abducting members into slavery in their private navy, framing their critics for crimes, and large-scale espionage against government agencies that might investigate them.
I am a regular Less Wrong commenter, but I'm making this comment anonymously because Scientology has a policy of singling out critics, especially prominent ones but also some simply chosen at random, for harrassment and attacks. They are very clever and vicious in the nature of the attacks they use, which have included libel, abusing the legal system, and framing their targets for crimes they did not commit. When protests are conducted against Scientology, the organizers advise all attendees to wear masks for their own safety, and I believe they are right to do so.
If you reply to this comment or discuss Scientology anywhere on the internet, please protect your anonymity by using a throwaway account. To discourage people from being reckless, I will downvote any comment which mentions Scientology and which looks like it's tied to a real identity.
You sound more like a Discordian than a Singularitatian.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I had the same idea! It's also interesting to consider if some discriminating evidence could (realistically) exist in either sense.
I'm pretty sure there are easier ways to make a living off a charity than to invent a cause that's nowhere near the mainstream and which is likely to be of interest to only a tiny minority.
Admittedly, doing it that way means you won't have many competitors.....
The basic hypothesis is that AI theorising was already (one of) his main interest/s, and founding SIAI was the easiest path for him to be able to make a living doing the stuff he enjoys full-time.
Eliezer says that AI theorizing became as interesting to him as it has because it is the most effective way for him to help people. Having observed his career (mostly through the net) for ten years, I would assign a very high (.96) probability that the causality actually runs that way rather than his altruism's being a rationalization for his interest in getting paid for AI theorizing.
Now as to the source of his altruism, I am much less confident, e.g., about which way he would choose if he found himself at a major decision point with large amounts of personal and global expected utility on the line where he had to choose between indelible widespread infamy or even total obscurity and helping people.
Not really useful as evidence against the mighty conspiracy theory, though - one would make identical statements to that effect whether he was honest, consciously deceiving, or anywhere inbetween.
Would you happen to remember an instance of Eliezer making an embarrassing / self-damaging admission when you couldn't see any reason for him to do so outside of an innate preference for honesty?