= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Community bias in threat evaluation - 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 (26)
I actually think the former is more true than the latter. You first become an environmentalist (through e.g. social pressure and status-seeking) and then filter your information input to become fearful of global warming and pollution.
How do you define 'environmentalist'?
What percentage of the community who considers UFAI a major risk is only part of that community because of social pressure and status-seeking?
No idea. However I am unaware of any social pressure to join LW. On the other hand, there is a lot of social pressure to, let's say, display environmentalist sensibilities.
Hm. Perhaps I asked poorly.
Would you say the social pressure as motivation to agree with the severity AI risks becomes significant once one voluntarily joins a community like LW?
If there are, say, 1000 active members, 500 of which believe that UFAI is the most important threat to deal with, how many of those 500 people have authentically arrived at that conclusion by doing the math? And how many are simply playing along because of social pressure, status-seeking, and a sort of Pascal's Wager that benefits them nothing for dissenting?
Yes, provided you want to integrate into the community (and not e.g. play the role of a contrarian).
I don't know but I would expect very few. Also, you can't arrive at this conclusion by doing math because at this point the likelihood of UFAI is a matter of your priors, not available data.
Evidence?
No evidence, just some anecdata as I know a couple of people for whom it happened in this order.
There is no sharp boundary, of course, and there's a bit of a feedback loop there, too. It's kinda like asking whether someone feared hell and because of that became a Christian, or whether she became a Christian and that made her fear hell...
On that particular example, it seems to me that anyone who fears hell is (at least) most of the way to Christianity already. Assuming it's the Christian hell they fear, of course, but then it's hard to see how fear of some other religion's hell would incline someone to become a Christian.
If you asked the people in question how their opinions evolved, do you think they would give an account that matches yours?
A lot of religions have much unpleasantness in the afterlife as a possibility :-/
Which is why I added "Assuming it's the Christian hell they fear", etc.