JamesAndrix comments on Less Wrong: Open Thread, September 2010 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: matt 01 September 2010 01:40AM

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

Comments (610)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: JamesAndrix 05 September 2010 08:22:54PM 4 points [-]

Finally Prompted by this, but it would be too offtopic there

http://lesswrong.com/lw/2ot/somethings_wrong/

The ideas really started forming around the recent 'public relations' discussions.

If we want to change people's minds, we should be advertising.

I do like long drawn out debates, but most of the time they don't accomplish anything and even when they do, they're a huge use of personal resources.

There is a whole industry centered around changing people's minds effectively. They have expertise in this, and they do it way better than we do.

Comment author: Perplexed 05 September 2010 11:02:21PM 1 point [-]

The ideas really started forming around the recent 'public relations' discussions.

If we want to change people's minds, we should be advertising.

My guess is that "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality" is the best piece of publicity the SIAI has ever produced.

I think that the only way to top it would be a Singularity/FAI-themed computer game.

How about a turn-based strategy game where the object is to get deep enough into the singularity to upload yourself before a uFAI shows up and turns the universe into paper clips?

Maybe it would work, and maybe not, but I think that the demographic we want to reach is 4chan - teenage hackers. We need to tap into the "Dark Side" of the Cyberculture.

Comment author: ata 05 September 2010 11:46:07PM *  8 points [-]

How about a turn-based strategy game where the object is to get deep enough into the singularity to upload yourself before a uFAI shows up and turns the universe into paper clips?

I don't think that would be very helpful. Advocating rationality (even through Harry Potter fanfiction) helps because people are better at thinking about the future and existential risks when they care about and understand rationality. But spreading singularity memes as a kind of literary genre won't do that. (With all due respect, your idea doesn't even make sense: I don't think "deep enough into the singularity" means anything with respect to what we actually talk about as the "singularity" here (successfully launching a Friendly singularity probably means the world is going to be remade in weeks or days or hours or minutes, and it probably means we're through with having to manually save the world from any remaining threats), and if a uFAI wants to turn the universe into paperclips, then you're screwed anyway, because the computer you just uploaded yourself into is part of the universe.)

Unfortunately, I don't think we can get people excited about bringing about a Friendly singularity by speaking honestly about how it happens purely at the object level, because what actually needs to be done is tons of math (plus some outreach and maybe paper-writing and book-writing and eventually a lot of coding). Saving the world isn't actually going to be an exciting ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny, and any marketing and publicity shouldn't be setting people up for disappointment by portraying it as such... and it should also be making it clear that even if existential risk reduction were fun and exciting, it wouldn't be something you do for yourself because it's fun and exciting, and you don't do it because you get to affiliate with smart/high-status people and/or become known as one yourself, and you don't do it because you personally want to live forever and don't care about the rest of the world, you do it because it's the right thing to do no matter how little you personally get out of it.

So we don't want to push the public further toward thinking of the singularity as a geek / sci-fi / power-fantasy / narcissistic thing (I realize some of those are automatic associations and pattern completions that people independently generate, but that's to be resisted and refuted rather than embraced). Fiction that portrays rationality as virtuous (and transparent, as in the Rationalist Fanfiction Principle) and that portrays transhumanistic protagonists that people can identify with (or at least like) is good because it makes the right methods and values salient and sympathetic and exciting. Giving people a vision of a future where humanity has gotten its shit together as a thing-to-protect is good; anything that makes AI or the Singularity or even FAI seem too much like an end in itself will probably be detrimental, especially if it is portrayed anywhere near anthropomorphically enough for it to be a protagonist or antagonist in a video game.

Maybe it would work, and maybe not, but I think that the demographic we want to reach is 4chan - teenage hackers. We need to tap into the "Dark Side" of the Cyberculture.

Only if they can be lured to the Light Side. The *chans seem rather tribal and amoral (at least the /b/s and the surrounding culture; I know that's not the entirety of the *chans, but they have the strongest influence in those circles). If the right marketing can turn them from apathetic tribalist sociopaths into altruistic globalist transhumanists, then that's great, but I wouldn't focus limited resources in that direction. Probably better to reach out to academia; at least that culture is merely inefficient rather than actively evil.

Comment author: Perplexed 06 September 2010 12:26:51AM 2 points [-]

I don't think that would be very helpful. [And here is why...]

I am impressed. A serious and thoughtful reply to a maybe serious, but definitely not thoughtful, suggestion. Thank you.

If the right marketing can turn them [the *chans] from apathetic tribalist sociopaths into altruistic globalist transhumanists, then that's great, but I wouldn't focus limited resources in that direction. Probably better to reach out to academia; at least that culture is merely inefficient rather than actively evil.

"Actively evil" is not "inherently evil". The action currently is over on the evil side because the establishment is boring. Anti-establishment evil is currently more fun. But what happens if the establishment becomes evil and boring? Could happen on the way to a friendly singularity. Don't rule any strategies out. Thwarting a nascent uFAI may be one of the steps we need to take along the path to FAI.

Comment author: ata 06 September 2010 01:02:05AM *  5 points [-]

I am impressed. A serious and thoughtful reply to a maybe serious, but definitely not thoughtful, suggestion. Thank you.

Thank you for taking it well; sometimes I still get nervous about criticizing. :)

"Actively evil" is not "inherently evil". The action currently is over on the evil side because the establishment is boring. Anti-establishment evil is currently more fun. But what happens if the establishment becomes evil and boring? Could happen on the way to a friendly singularity. Don't rule any strategies out. Thwarting a nascent uFAI may be one of the steps we need to take along the path to FAI.

I've heard the /b/ / "Anonymous" culture described as Chaotic Neutral, which seems apt. My main concern is that waiting for the right thing to become fun for them to rebel against is not efficient. (Example: Anonymous's movement against Scientology began not in any of the preceding years when Scientology was just as harmful as always, but only once they got an embarrassing video of Tom Cruise taken down from YouTube. "Project Chanology" began not as anything altruistic, but as a morally-neutral rebellion against what was perceived as anti-lulz. It did eventually grow into a larger movement including people who had never heard of "Anonymous" before, people who actually were in it to make the world a better place whether the process was funny or not. These people were often dismissed as "moralfags" by the 4chan old-timers.) Indeed they are not inherently evil, but when morality is not a strong consideration one way or the other, it's too easy for evil to be more fun than good. I would not rely on them (or even expect them) to accomplish any long-term good when that's not what they're optimizing for.

(And there's the usual "herding cats" problem — even if something would normally seem fun to them, they're not going to be interested if they get the sense that someone is trying to use them.)

Maybe some useful goal that appeals to their sensibilities will eventually present itself, but for now, if we're thinking about where to direct limited resources and time and attention, putting forth the 4chan crowd as a good target demographic seems like a privileged hypothesis. "Teenage hackers" are great (I was one!), but I'm not sure about reaching out to them once they're already involved in 4chan-type cultures. There are probably better times and places to get smart young people interested.

Comment author: jacob_cannell 05 September 2010 08:43:49PM 0 points [-]

What ideas? I'm pretty sure I find whatever you are talking about interesting and shiny, but I'm not quite sure what it even is.

Comment author: JamesAndrix 05 September 2010 08:48:26PM 0 points [-]

Any ideas. For the SIAI it would probably be existential risks then UFAI later, in general it could be rationality or evolution or atheism or whatever.

Comment author: jacob_cannell 05 September 2010 08:51:26PM 0 points [-]

What is the whole industry you speak of? Self-help, religion, marketing? And what additional advertising? I think that spreading the ideas is important as well, I"m just not sure what you are considering.

Comment author: JamesAndrix 05 September 2010 09:56:23PM 2 points [-]

Advertising/marketing. Short of ashiest bus ads, I can't think of anything that's been done.

All I'm really suggesting is that we focus on mass persuasion in the way it has been proven to be most efficient. What that actually amounts to will depend on the target audience, and how much money is available, among other things.

Comment author: jacob_cannell 05 September 2010 10:32:55PM 2 points [-]

Did you mean "atheist bus ads"? I actually find strict-universal-atheism to be irrational compared to agnosticism because of the SA and the importance of knowing the limits of certainty, but that's unrelated and I digress.

I've long suspected that writing popular books on the subject would be an effective strategy for mass persuasion. Kurzweil has certainly had a history of some success there, although he also brings some negative publicity due to his association with dubious supplements and the expensive SingUniversity. It will be interesting to see how EY's book turns out and is received.

I'm actually skeptical about how far rationality itself can go towards mass persuasion. Building a rational case is certainly important, but the content of your case is even more important (regardless of its rationality).

On that note I suspect that bridging a connection to the mainstream's beliefs and values would go a ways towards increasing mass marketability. You have to consider not just the rationality of ideas, but the utility of ideas.

It would be interesting to analyze and compare how emphasizing the hope vs doom aspects of the message would effect popularity. SIAI at the moment appears focused on emphasizing doom and targeting a narrow market: a subset of technophile 'rationalists' or atheist intellectuals and wooing academia in particular.

I'm interested in how you'd target mainstream liberal christians or new agers, for example, or even just the intellectual agnostic/atheist mainstream - the types of people who buy books such as the End of Faith, Breaking the Spell, etc etc. Although a good portion of that latter demographic is probably already exposed to the Singularity is Near.

Comment author: JamesAndrix 05 September 2010 11:33:39PM 0 points [-]

I'm not sure what I'd do, but I'm not a marketing expert either. (Though I am experimenting)

It would probably be possible to make a campaign that took advantage of UFAI in sci-fi. AI's taking over the world isn't a difficult concept to get across, so the ad would just need to persuade that it's possible in reality, and there is a group working towards a solution.

I hope you haven't forgotten our long drawn out discussion, as I do think that one is worthwhile.

Comment author: ata 07 September 2010 06:02:49PM 5 points [-]

AI's taking over the world isn't a difficult concept to get across

AIs taking over the world because they have implausibly human-like cognitive architectures and they hate us or resent us or desire higher status than us is an easy concept to get across. It is also, of course, wrong. An AI immediately taking apart the world to use its mass for something else because its goal system is nothing like ours and its utility function doesn't even have a term for human values is more difficult; because of anthropomorphic bias, it will be much less salient to people, even if it is more probable.

Comment author: JamesAndrix 07 September 2010 06:57:57PM 1 point [-]

They have the right conclusion (plausible AI takeover) for slightly wrong reasons. "hate [humans] or resent [humans] or desire higher status than [humans]" are slightly different values than ours (even if just like the values humans often have towards other groups)

So we can gradually nudge people closer to the truth a bit at a time by saying "Plus, it's unlikely that they'll value X, so even if they do something with the universe it will not have X"

But we don't have to introduce them to the full truth immediately, as long as we don't base any further arguments on falsehoods they believe.

If someone is convinced of the need for asteroid defense because asteroids could destroy a city, you aren't obligated to tell them that larger asteroids could destroy all humanity when you're asking for money. Even if you believe bigger asteroids to be more likely.

I don't think it's dark epistemology to avoid confusing people if they've already got the right idea.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 07 September 2010 07:28:21PM *  2 points [-]

So we can gradually nudge people closer to the truth a bit at a time by saying "Plus, it's unlikely that they'll value X, so even if they do something with the universe it will not have X"

Writing up high-quality arguments for your full position might be a better tool than "nudging people closer to the truth a bit at a time". Correct ideas have a scholar appeal due to internal coherence, even if they need to overcome plenty of cached misconceptions, but making that case requires a certain critical mass of published material.