= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jonathan_Graehl 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)
Your last sentence seems true.
I think I also buy the evolved-intelligence-should-be-myopic argument, even though we have only one data point, and don't need the evolutionary argument to lend support to what direct observation already shows in our case.
So, I can't see why this is downvoted except that it's somewhat of a tangent.
Well, I wasn't really claiming that "evolved-intelligence-should-be-myopic".
Evolved-intelligence is what we have, and it can predict the future - at least a little:
Even if the "paranoid fantasies" have consderable substance, would still usually be better (for your genes) to concentrate on producing offspring. Averting disaster is a "tragedy of the commons" situation. Free riding - and letting someone else do that - may well reap the benefits without paying the costs.