= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
joeteicher comments on Selection Effects in estimates of Global Catastrophic Risk - 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 (64)
Sidetracked from what?
From the topic, in this case "selection effects in estimates of global catastrophic risk". If you casually mention you don't particularly care about humans or that personally killing a bunch of them may be an effective strategy the discussion is effectively hijacked. So it doesn't matter that you don't wish to do anybody harm.
I can't control what other people say but I didn't at any point say that I don't care about humans, nor did I say that personally killing anyone is a good idea ever.
my main point was that the probabilities of various xRisks don't matter. My side point was that if it turned out that UFAI was a significant risk then politically enforced luddism would be the logical response. I like to make that point once in awhile in the hopes that SingInst will realize the wisdom of it.
It would be a response, but you have described it as "logical" instead of with an adjective describing some of its relative virtues.
Also, distinguish the best response for society and the best response for an advocate, even if you think they are nearly the same, just to show you've considered that.