cousin_it comments on The Importance of Self-Doubt - Less Wrong

23 Post author: multifoliaterose 19 August 2010 10:47PM

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

Comments (726)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: wedrifid 20 August 2010 01:45:48AM *  12 points [-]

It comes down to this: I enjoy LW for now. If Eliezer insists on creating a sealed reality around himself, what's that to me? You don't have to slay every dragon you see. Saving one person from megalomania (real or imagined) is way less important than your own research. Imagine the worst possible world: Eliezer turns into a kook. What would that change, in the grand scheme of things or in your personal life?

The very fate of the universe, potentially. Purely hypothetically and for the sake of the discussion:

  • If Eliezer did have the potential to provide a strong positive influence on grand scale future outcomes but was crippled by the still hypothetical lack of self-doubt then that is a loss of real value.
  • A bad 'Frodo' can be worse than no Frodo at all. If we were to give the ring to a Frodo who thought he could take on Nazgul in hand to hand combat then we would lose the ring and so the lose the chance to give said ring to someone who could pull it off. Multi (and those for whom he asks such questions) have limited resources (and attention) so it may be worth deliberate investigation of potential recipients of trust.
  • Worse yet than a counterproductive Frodo would be a Frodo whose arrogance pisses of Aragorn, Gandalf, Legolas, Gimli, Merry, Pippin and even Sam so much that they get disgusted with the whole 'save the world' thing and go hang out in the forest flirting with Elven maidens. Further cause to investigate just whose bid for notoriety and influence you wish to support.

I cannot emphasise how much this is only a reply to the literal question cousin_it asked and no endorsement or denial of any of the above claims as they relate to persons real or imagined. For example it may have been good if Frodo was arrogant enough to piss off Aragorn. He may cracked it, taken the ring from Frodo and given it to Arwen. Arwen was crazy enough to give up the immortality she already had and so would be as good a candidate as any for being able to ditch a ring, without being completely useless for basically all purposes.

Comment author: cousin_it 20 August 2010 07:45:23AM *  1 point [-]

What Eliezer said. I was arguing from the assumption that he is wrong about FAI and stuff. If he's right about the object level, then he's not deluded in considering himself important.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 20 August 2010 02:03:39PM *  3 points [-]

I was arguing from the assumption that he is wrong about FAI and stuff. If he's right about the object level, then he's not deluded in considering himself important.

But if he is wrong about FAI and stuff, then he is still deluded not specifically about considering himself important, that implication is correct, he is deluded about FAI and stuff.

Comment author: cousin_it 20 August 2010 02:05:35PM 0 points [-]

Agreed.

Comment author: wedrifid 20 August 2010 09:32:22AM *  2 points [-]

If he's right about the object level, then he's not deluded in considering himself important.

Which, of course, would still leave the second two dot points as answers to your question.

Comment author: cousin_it 20 August 2010 09:53:59AM *  1 point [-]

How so? Eliezer's thesis is "AGI is dangerous and FAI is possible". If he's wrong - if AGI poses no danger or FAI is impossible - then what do you need a Frodo for?

Comment author: wedrifid 20 August 2010 10:36:31AM 0 points [-]

Edited the grandparent to disambiguate the context.

(I haven't discussed that particular thesis of Eliezer's and nor does doubting that particular belief seem to be a take home message from multi's post. The great grandparent is just a straightforward answer to the paragraph it quotes.)