Steve_Rayhawk comments on What does the world look like, the day before FAI efforts succeed? - Less Wrong

23 Post author: michaelcurzi 16 November 2012 08:56PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (63)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Steve_Rayhawk 17 November 2012 01:40:37AM *  17 points [-]

you know what I mean.

Right, but this is a public-facing post. A lot of readers might not know why you could think it was obvious that "good guys" would imply things like information security, concern for Friendliness so-named, etc., and they might think that the intuition you mean to evoke with a vague affect-laden term like "good guys" is just the same argument-disdaining groupthink that would be implied if they saw it on any other site.

To prevent this impression, if you're going to use the term "good guys", then at or before the place where you first use it, you should probably put an explanation, like

(I.e. people who are familiar with the kind of thinking that can generate arguments like those in "The Detached Lever Fallacy", "Fake Utility Functions" and the posts leading up to it, "Anthropomorphic Optimism" and "Contaminated by Optimism", "Value is Fragile" and the posts leading up to it, and the "Envisioning perfection" and "Beyond the adversarial attitude" discussions in Creating Friendly AI or most of the philosophical discussion in Coherent Extrapolated Volition, and who understand what it means to be dealing with a technology that might be able to bootstrap to the singleton level of power that could truly engineer a "forever" of the "a boot stamping on a human face — forever" kind.)

Comment author: michaelcurzi 17 November 2012 02:39:58AM 5 points [-]

Okay, I'm convinced. I think I will just remove the term altogether, because it's confusing the issue.

Comment author: hankx7787 17 November 2012 01:44:02AM -1 points [-]

well said.