= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Perplexed comments on Ben Goertzel: The Singularity Institute's Scary Idea (and Why I Don't Buy It) - 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 (432)
I'm not a big fan of Eliezer, but that complaint strikes me as completely unfair. There is far less censorship here than at a typical moderated blog. And EY does expend some effort showing that various ideas are bogus.
I'm not an insider, or even old-timer, but I have reason to believe that the one single forbidden subject here is censored not because it is believed to be valid or bogus, nor because it casts a bad light on EY and SIAI, but rather because discussing it does no good and may do some harm - something a bit like a ban on certain kinds of racist offensive speech, but different.
And in any case, the "forbidden idea" can always be discussed elsewhere, assuming you can even find anyone that can become interested in the idea elsewhere. The reach of EY's "censorship" is very limited.
I've looked at it.
That is my impression too. Which is why I don't understand why you are complaining about censorship of ideas and wondering why EY doesn't spend more time refuting ideas.
As I understand it, we are talking about actions that might be undertaken by an AI that you and I would call insane. The "censorship" is intended to mitigate the harm that might be done by such an AI. Since I think it possible that a future AI (particularly one built by certain people) might actually be insane, I have no problem with preemptive mitigation activities, even if the risk seems miniscule.
In other words, why make such a big deal out of it?
Having people delete your comments often rubs people up the wrong way, I find.
Hmm I haven't. It was meant to explain where that sentence came from in my above copy & paste comment. The gist of the comment was regarding foundational evidence supporting the premise of risks from AI going FOOM.
Does astronomical value outweigh astronomical low probability? You can come up with all kinds of scenarios that bear astronomical value, an astronomical amount of scenarios if you allow for astronomical low probability. Isn't this betting on infinity?
As I said, explanations exist. Don't confuse with actual good understanding, which as far as I know nobody managed to attain yet.
Let's not dwell on terminology, where the denoted concepts remain much more urgently unclear.
The unabomber performed some "drastic actions". I expect he didn't mind if he was "perceived to be crazy" by others - although he didn't want to plead insanity.
The motivation for the censorship is not to keep the idea from the AGI. It is to keep the idea from you. For your own good.
Seriously. And don't ask me to explain.
Here's the problem: I have read it. And I may even agree that this is a serious issue. I don't trust myself to be intelligent enough to decide one way or the other, so I'll defer to Yudkowsky in this case.
But I have already read it. And it is extremely unlikely that I ever would have read it if it wasn't for the fact that it was banned, there was a huge kerfuffle, and we lost a good community member. The censorship itself probably caused this idea to propagate more than it ever could have if simply left alone. The Streisand Effect again.
The only thing that mentioning it can do is to spread it further. People who don't care will continue to mention it, but people who do shouldn't say anything about it at all. Not even to justify it, not even to warn away from it. That only builds the allure of the mysterious. That's what got me searching for it in the first place.
You don't hide the Necronomicon by constantly telling everyone to stay away from it, and assuring them you can't explain why for their own good. You hide it by never mentioning it at all.
Good idea. Lots of luck enforcing that.
Enforcing? Twas just a suggestion. But if you really think it's a good idea, please down-vote my comment so it'll fall below the cut-off and casual browsers won't see it. :) That doesn't give it the aura of censored Forbidden Fruit, but it will cause Trivial Inconvenience