= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JanetK comments on Existential Risk and Public Relations - 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 (613)
Can you give a few more examples of claims made by SIAI staff that people find uncredible? Because it's probably not entirely clear to them (or to others interested in existential risk advocacy) what kind of things a typical smart person would find uncredible.
Looking at your previous comments, I see that another example you gave was that AGI will be developed within the next century. Any other examples?
Is accepting multi-universes important to the SIAI argument? There are a very, very large number of smart people who know very little about physics. They give lip service to quantum theory and relativity because of authority - but they do not understand them. Mentioning multi-universes just slams a door in their minds. If it is important then you will have to continue referring to it but if it is not then it would be better not to sound like you have science fiction type ideas.
Definitely not, for the purposes of public relations at least. It may make some difference when actually doing AI work.
Good point. Cryonics probably comes with a worse Sci. Fi. vibe but is unfortunately less avoidable.
This is a large part of what I implicitly had in mind making my cryonics post (which I guess really rubbed you the wrong way). You might be interested in taking a look at the updated version if you haven't already done so - I hope it's more clear than it was before.