= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jmmcd comments on Heading off a near-term AGI arms race - 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 (70)
Because it's bad tactics to endorse it in the open or because sabotaging unfriendly AI research is a case of not even if it's the right thing to do?
I assume you'd slow down or kibosh a not-proved-to-be-friendly AGI project if you had the authority to do so. But you wouldn't interfere if you didn't have legitimate authority over the project? There are plenty of not-illegal, but still ethical norm-breaking opportunities for sabotage, (deny the people on the project tenure, if you're in a university, hire the best researchers away, etc).
Do you think this shouldn't be discussed out of respect for the law, out of respect for the autonomy of researchers, or a mix of both?
It might damage LW's credibility among decision-makers and public opinion. Of course, it might improve LW's credibility among certain other groupings. PR is a tricky balancing act. PETA is a good example in both cases.
Indeed. Comment like those increase my belief that LW is home to some crazy dangerous doomsday cult that stores weapons caches and prepares terror attacks.
(I still don't assign an high probability to that belief, yet, but still higher than most communities I know)
I came here from OB, and I lurked a bit before posting precisely because I didn't like these kind of undertones. If that attitude becomes more prevalent I will probably go away to avoid any association.
I was going to say: "Well, on the bright side, at least your username is not really Googleable." Then I Googled it just for fun, and found you on the first page of the results (゜レ゜)