Larks comments on Existential Risk and Public Relations - Less Wrong

36 Post author: multifoliaterose 15 August 2010 07:16AM

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

Comments (613)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Larks 17 August 2010 10:11:48PM *  6 points [-]

This page is now the 8th result for a google search for 'existential risk' and the 4th result for 'singularity existential risk'

Regardless of the effect SIAI may have had on the public image of existential risk reduction, it seems this is unlikely to be helpful.

Edit: it is now 7th and first, respectively. This is plusungood.

Comment author: jimrandomh 18 August 2010 03:32:02AM 8 points [-]

This is partially because Google gives a ranking boost to things it sees as recent, so it may not stay that well ranked.

Comment author: Larks 18 August 2010 05:00:28AM 0 points [-]

Right & upvoted.

Comment author: multifoliaterose 18 August 2010 04:09:40AM 0 points [-]

Yes, good point.

Comment author: multifoliaterose 17 August 2010 10:15:46PM 1 point [-]

I disagree. I think that my post does a good job of highlighting the fact that public aversion to thinking about existential risk reduction is irrational.

Comment author: Larks 17 August 2010 10:25:23PM *  5 points [-]

The post (as I parse it) has two points:

  • The public are irrational with respect to existential risk
  • Donating to SIAI has negative expected impact on existential risk reduction

The former is fine, but the latter seems more likely to damage SIAI and existential risk reduction. It's not desirable that when someone does their initial google one of the first things they find is infighting and attacks on SIAI as essentially untrustworthy. Rather, they should find actual articles about the singularity, the dangers it poses, and the work being done.

As you so accurately quote Yvain, for the average reading this is not an intelligent critique of the public relations of SingInst. This is 'boo Eliezer!'

Comment author: multifoliaterose 17 August 2010 10:36:21PM 1 point [-]

The former is fine, but the latter seems more likely to damage SIAI and existential risk reduction. It's not desirable that when someone does their initial google one of the first things they find is infighting and attacks on SIAI as essentially untrustworthy. Rather, they should find actual articles about the singularity, the dangers it poses, and the work being done.

I agree that this article is not one of the first that should appear when people Google the singularity or existential risk. I'm somewhat perplexed as to how this happened?

Despite this issue, I think that the benefits of my posting on this topic outweigh the costs. I believe that ultimately whether or not humans avoid global catastrophic risk depends much more on people's willingness to think about the topic than it does on SIAI's reputation. I don't believe that my post will lower readers' interest thinking about in existential risk.