= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
multifoliaterose 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)
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.
The post (as I parse it) has two points:
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!'
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.