= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
XiXiDu comments on A Brief Overview of Machine Ethics - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (90)
If I would disagree and believe that it is worth it to voice my disagreement, then yes. You just can't compare that though. Can you name another group of people who try to take over the universe?
Jehovah's Witnesses also only attract certain people. A lot of money is being donated and spend on brainwashing material designed to get even more money to spend on brainwashing. I think that is wrong. The problem is that nobody there is deliberately doing something 'wrong'. There is no guru, they all believe to do what is 'right'. Nobody is critical. But if they had a forum where one could openly discuss with them about their ideas then I'd be there and challenge them. Not that I want to compare them with LW, that be crazy, but I want to challenge your argument.
The Village Reach argument was referring to SIAI, not Less Wrong. They are distinct entities, one is a forum for discussion and the other is an organization with the aim of doing something. It is quite right that the first has many dissenting opinions, whereas the latter does not. SIAI may be able to benefit from dissent on the many sub-issues related to FAI, but not to the fundamental idea that FAI is important.
Imagine a company where about 40% of the employees, even at the highest levels, disagreed with the premise that they should be trying to make money and instead either intentionally tried to lose the company money, or argued constantly with the other 60%. Nothing would get done.
Disagreement about FAI may be good for LW but it is probably not good for SIAI. Since there is disagreement on LW, I really don't see the problem.
If FAI is unimportant, SIAI should conclude that FAI is unimportant. Hence it's not clear where the following distinction happens.
I don't think its the best use of any organization's money to employ people who disagree with the premise that the organization should exist.
But disagreement itself is not the reason for this being a bad strategy.
I don't quite follow. The only point I was trying to make was that "everybody in SIAI agrees about FAI, therefore they're all a bunch of brainwashed zombies" is not a valid complaint.
Yes.
What argument? benelliott suggested that your argument makes use of a very weak piece of evidence (presence of significant agreement). Obviously, interpreted as counterevidence of the opposite claim, it is equally weak.