= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
CharlesR comments on BOOK DRAFT: 'Ethics and Superintelligence' (part 1) - 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 (107)
"This extinction would result from a “technological singularity” in which an artificial intelligence (AI) . . . "
By this point, you've talked about airplanes, Apollo, science good, philosophy bad. Then you introduce the concepts of existential risk, claim we are at the cusp of an extinction level event, and the end of the world is going to come from . . . Skynet.
And we're only to paragraph four.
These are complex ideas. Your readers need time to digest them. Slow down.
You may also want to think about coming at this from another direction. If the goal is to convince your readers AI is dangerous, maybe you should introduce the concept of AI first. Then explain why their dangerous. Use an example that everyone knows about and build on that. You need to establish rapport with your readers before you try to get them to accept strange ideas. (For example, it is common knowledge computers are better at chess than humans.)
Finally, is your goal to get published? Nonfiction is usually written on spec. Some (many, all?) publishers are wary of buying anything that has already appeared on the internet. Just a few things to keep in mind.
This is a difference between popular writing and academic writing. Academic writing begins with an abstract - a summary of your position and what you argue, without any explanation of the concepts involved or arguments for your conclusions. Only then do you proceed to explanation and argument.
As for publishing, that is less important than getting it written, and getting it written well. That said, the final copy will be quite a bit different than the draft sections posted here. My copy of this opening is already quite a bit different than what you see above.
Clearly, I and others thought you were writing a popular book. No need to "school" us on the difference.
Okay.
It wasn't clear to me that you thought I was writing a popular book, since I denied that in my second paragraph (before the quoted passage from the book).
Your clarification wasn't in the original version of the preamble that I read. Or are you claiming that you haven't edited it? Because I clearly remember a different sentence structure.
However, I am willing to admit my memory is faulty on this.
CharlesR,
My original clarification said that it was a cross between academic writing and mainstream writing, the result being something like 'Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment.' That apparently wasn't clear enough, so I did indeed change my preamble recently to be clearer in its denial of popular style. Sorry if that didn't come through in the first round.
And people wonder how wars get started . . .
Heh. Sorry; I didn't mean to offend. I thought it was clear from my original preamble that this wasn't a popular-level work, but apparently not!