You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Normal_Anomaly comments on Q&A #2 with Singularity Institute Executive Director - Less Wrong Discussion

9 Post author: lukeprog 13 December 2011 06:48AM

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

Comments (47)

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

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 26 December 2011 07:55:15PM 0 points [-]

The only reasons I can see for it not working would be: 1. predictions that AGIs will come before the next generation of rationalists comes along. (which is also a question of how early to start such an education program). 2. belief that our current researchers are up to the challenge. (even then, having lots of people who've had a structured education designed to produce the best FAI researchers would undeniably reduce existential risk. no?)

I can't speak for the SIAI, but to me this sounds like a suboptimal use of resources, and bad PR. It trips my "this would sound cultish to the average person" buzzer. Starting a school that claimed it "emphasized critical thinking" to teach rationalists might be a good idea for someone with administrative talents who wanted to work on x-risk, but I can't see SIAI doing it.

Comment author: Curiouskid 27 December 2011 03:31:46AM 1 point [-]

How would you distribute resources? I think this is a natural response if one accepts the premise that the main bottleneck to AGI is a few key insights by geniuses (as Eliezer says).

Why do we care if people who aren't logical enough to see the reasoning behind the school think we're cultish?