FrF comments on Humans are not automatically strategic - Less Wrong

153 Post author: AnnaSalamon 08 September 2010 07:02AM

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

Comments (266)

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

Comment author: FrF 09 September 2010 04:25:26PM *  1 point [-]

With all respect to Eliezer I think nowadays the gravely anachronistic term "village idiot" shouldn't be used anymore. I wanted to say that almost every time when I see the intelligence scale graphic in his talks.

Comment author: wnoise 09 September 2010 04:56:08PM *  6 points [-]

Why do you think the term "village idiot" is "gravely anachronistic"? It's part of an idiom. "Idiot" was briefly used as a quasi-scientific label for certain range of IQs, and that usage is certainly anachronistic, but "idiot" had meaning before that, and continues to. The same is true for "village idiot".

Comment author: FrF 09 September 2010 06:25:15PM *  6 points [-]

You're right, wnoise, "village idiot" is part of an idiom but one I don't like at all and I don't think I'm particular in this regard.

I should have put my objection as "'Village idiot' is gravely anachronistic unless you want to be insensitive by subsuming a plethora of medical conditions and social determinants under a dated, derogatory term for mentally disabled people."

This may sound like nit-picking but obviously said intelligence graph is an important item in SIAI's symbolic tool kit and therefore every detail should be right. When I see the graph, I'm always thinking: Please, "for the love of cute kittens", change the "village idiot"!

Comment author: Emile 09 September 2010 06:54:34PM 5 points [-]

For what it's worth, I don't find anything wrong with the term "village idiot".

However, from previous discussions here, I think I might be on the low side of the community for my preference for "lengths to which Eliezer and the SIAI should go to accommodate the sensibilities of idiots" - there are more important things to do, and a never-ending supply of idiots.

Still, maybe it should be changed. It's not because it doesn't offend me that it won't offend anybody reasonable.

Comment author: ciphergoth 09 September 2010 04:56:42PM 0 points [-]

In conversation with friends I tend to use George W Bush as the other endpoint - a dig at those hated Greens but it's uncontentious here in the UK, and if it helps keep people listening (which it seems to) it's worth it.

Comment author: mattnewport 09 September 2010 05:45:50PM 9 points [-]

This seems a bad example to use given the context. If you are trying to convince people that greater than human intelligence will give AIs an insurmountable advantage over even the smartest humans then drawing attention to a supposed idiot who became the most powerful man in the world for 8 years raises the question of whether you either don't know what intelligence is or vastly overestimate its ability to grant real world power.

Comment author: ciphergoth 12 September 2010 11:25:55AM 1 point [-]

For the avoidance of doubt, it seems very unlikely in practice that Bush doesn't have above-average intelligence.

Comment author: Emile 09 September 2010 06:59:15PM 3 points [-]

Wikipedia gives him an estimated IQ of 125, which may be a wee bit off for the low end of the IQ distribution. Still, if that's the example that requires the less explanation in practice, why not.

Maybe Forrest Gump would work as well?

Comment author: ciphergoth 19 September 2010 07:59:48AM 0 points [-]

My most recent use of this example got the response George W Bush Was Not Stupid.