= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
BaconServ comments on MIRI strategy - 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 (94)
Based on my (subjective and anecdotal, I'll admit) personal experiences, I think it would be bad. Look at climate change.
Is there something wrong with climate change in the world today? Yes, it's hotly debated by millions of people, a super-majority of them being entirely unqualified to even have an opinion, but is this a bad thing? Would less public awareness of the issue of climate change have been better? What differences would there be? Would organizations be investing in "green" and alternative energy if not for the publicity surrounding climate change?
It's easy to look back after the fact and say, "The market handled it!" But the truth is that the publicity and the corresponding opinions of thousands of entrepreneurs is part of that market.
Looking at the two markets:
The latter just seems a ton less likely to mitigate uFAI risks than the former.
The failure mode that I'm most concerned about is overreaction followed by a backlash of dismissal. If that happened, the end result would be far worse than obscurity.