= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Fair point. It is not (yet) a big convention though, so I think the timescale is ok. It's more about trying to gather the people that are most interested in starting a European community and getting something going that we can build upon.
I would love to have been there. Thank you for making it happen and I hope we get a little more notice for the next one!
Wait, what? It's happening on the 11th of April, that's another 2.5 months?!
No one makes the wrong decisions for reasons they think are wrong. The more clever the man, as the Nroni were fond of saying, the more apt he was to make a fool of himself. We all argue ourselves into our mistakes.
Scott R. Bakker, The White-Luck Warrior
I guess we could just add most of the "Prince of Nothing" and the "The Aspect-Emperor" Series by Scott R. Bakker to the LessWrong quotes ;-) By the way, is there a reading list that we can add them to?
Ok, had a go on it as well. And what format do you want?
I disagree strongly. (it depends on the size of the drone army, and what sort of people they are.)
Drone army can probably be approximated as a slavishly loyal human army
Terrorists would probably go for the nuke if they thought it achievable.
Rouge states are probably more dangerous with a (large, robust) drone army because it can reduce the ability of a human military to revolt, and possibly do other things.
What do you disagree strongly with? My speculation that you would need fewer people to control them? I'm not sure about that so if you can bring in a good argument you can change my view on that.
Terrorists are not our problem (in general and in this specific state). Terrorists with nukes cannot feasably control a country with them.
I am talking about people that have easy access to drones and want to control a country with them. Traditional totalitarian techniques plus drones is what I am really worried about, not terrorists.
So I admit that with "a few people with drones vs. nukes" I thought about a (close to) worst case. Obviously some low tech terrorists in Afghanistan are not a real substantial problem when they control drones, but high military officials with power fantasies are. Of course rouge states with drones are even more dangerous...
(Trigger warning for atrocities of war.)
Human soldiers can revolt against their orders, but human soldiers can also decide to commit atrocities beyond their orders. Many of the atrocities of war are specifically human behaviors. A drone may bomb you or shoot you — very effectively — but it is not going to decide to torture you out of boredom, rape you in front of your kids, or cut off your ears for trophies. Some of the worst atrocities of recent wars — Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq — have been things that a killer robot simply isn't going to do outside of anthropomorphized science-fantasy fiction.
The orders given to an autonomous drone, and all of the major steps of its decision-making, can be logged and retained indefinitely. Rather than advocating against autonomous drone warfare, it would be better to advocate for accountable drone warfare.
That is indeed a fair point, but I think it is not so important when talking about a tyrant gaining control of his own country. Because the soldiers in Iraq, Bosnia etc. saw the people they tortured (or similar) not as people, but as "the Enemy". That kind of thing is much harder to achieve when they are supposed to be fighting their own countrymen.
Are a few people with killer drones more dangerous than a few people with nukes?
Yes they are, because nukes can only be aimed once and then destroy the targets (so they are just a direct threat) while autonomous robots can be used to control all kinds of stuff (checkpoints, roads, certain people). Also they allow much more accurate killing while nukes have a huge area of effect. Also I think (that is speculation, admittedly) that you would need fewer people to control a drone army than nukes of comparable destructive power.
Does anyone else believe in deliberate alienation? Forums and organizations like Lesswrong often strive to be and claim to want to be more (and by extension indefinitely) inclusive but I think excluding people can be very useful in terms of social utilons and conversation, if not so good for $$$. There's a lot of value in having a pretty good picture of who you're talking to in a given social group, in terms of making effective use of jargon and references as well as appeals to emotion that actually appeal. I think thought should be carefully given as to who exactly you let in or block out with any given form of inclusiveness or insensitivity.
On a more personal note, I think looking deliberately weird is a great way to make your day to day happenstance interactions more varied and interesting.
Acting "weird" (well or just weird, depends) is something I have contemplated, too. For now I have to confess that I mostly try to stick to the norms (especially in public) except if I have a good reason to do otherwise. I think I might make this one of my tasks to just do some random "weird" acts of kindness.
About the alienation: I don't think that we should do a lot about that. I think enforcing certain rules and having our own memes and terms for stuff already has some strong effects on that. I certainly felt a bit weird when I first came here. And I already was having thoughts like "don't judge something by it's cover" etc. in my mind (avoiding certain biases).
I still don't know whether I'm up for it. I wish I could shadow some scientist in a lab or something along those lines but this ain't possible.
I guess I'll have to stick with Medicine, just in case I end up being not a great researcher.
I would say that it is better to try and fail to become "the best possible you" than to live life in mediocrity. I would definitely not choose the safest option instead of the best while still in university. (In fact I was so fortunate as to have a compromise available.) The time to work for your dreams is now. You (hopefully) don't have burdens like kids, debt, huge possessions (house, car) etc. to care for so make mistakes and learn from them. Me stealing/paraphrasing: "Try and you can fail, try not and you have already failed!" Of course I might just be someone giving bad advice, but I think not. (obviously) You won't waste your time if you fail becoming a researcher, so definitely try it.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I have to agree with Kawoomba. It would be totally awesome to try and puzzle out the reasons that you have for your ideas with just the ideas given. An hour of your time (to write a post) could prompt people to change their minds on how society should be optimized and that is an opportunity that you shouldn't miss. Also, changing the way society works is one of my pet peeves.