= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Bakkot comments on Muehlhauser-Goertzel Dialogue, Part 1 - 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 (161)
This has been addressed on LW before at great length, but here's a quick and rough summary:
We have precisely one example of evolution tending towards what we would consider moral progress. Even given that, there has been historically a vast amount of difference in the morality of beings which are evolutionarily speaking identical. As such, this is at best extremely weak evidence for your claim.
Furthermore, AIs are not likely to be produced by the same mechanism that produced humans, and so making assumptions about AIs based on the mechanism that produced humans is dangerous.
Finally, you claim that "evolution leads to moral progress", but provide no mechanism whatsoever by which it might do so. For people who understand evolution, this claim sounds completely absurd.
So: No, you aren't being downvoted because this is a "truth that this community doesn't want to hear about"; you're being downvoted for making a claim of extremely questionable factual accuracy or logical soundess which has been discussed at great length in this forum and then providing absolutely no explanation or support for your claim.
I don't think that you are taking proper account of cultural evolution - or of the other lineages in which advanced intelligence has evolved.
So: both humans and machine intelligence will be produced by the process of Darwinian evolution. The past may not necessarily be a guid to the future - but it certainly helps. You claim that I am making "assumptions" - but my comment is more of the form of observing a trend. Projecting an existing trend is usually called "forecasting", not "assuming". Of course, forecasting using trends is not a foolproof method - and I never claimed that it was.
Yes, I did. In the supplied link there are explanations of why evolution leads to progress. Of course, technical progress leads to moral progress via relatively well-understood mechanisms associated with game theory.
Only for those who don't understand evolution properly.
Thanks for your speculations about what others think. Again, note that I did provide a link explaining my position.