= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on What I would like the SIAI to publish - 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 (218)
Political incentive determines the bottom line. Then the page is filled with rhetoric (and, from the looks of it, loaded language and status posturing.)
Seriously, Ben is trying to accuse people of abusing the self-modification term based on the (trivially true) observation that there is a blurry boundary between learning and self-modification?
It's a good thing Ben is mostly harmless. I particularly liked the part where I asked Eliezer:
... and actually got a candid reply.
It is interesting to note the effort Ben is going to here to dissaffiliate himself with the SIAI and portray them as 'out group'. Wei was querying (see earlier link) the wisdom of having Ben as Director of Research just earlier this year.
An educated outsider will very likely side with the expert though. Just like with the hype around the LHC and its dangers, academics and educated people largely believed the physicists working on it and not the fringe group that claimed it will destroy the world. Although that might be vice versa with the general public. Of course you cannot draw any conclusions about who's right from this, but it should be investigated anyway because what all parties have in common is the need for support and money.
There are two different groups to be convinced here by each party. One group includes the educated people (academics) and mediocre rationalists and the other group is the general public.
When it comes to who's right, the people one should listen to are the educated experts who are listening to both parties, their position and arguments. Although their intelligence and status as rationalists will be disputed as each party will claim that they are not smart enough to see the truth if they disagree with them.
Well said and truly spoken.