I use daily checklists, in spreadsheet form, for this.
Was this possibly a language thing? Are there Chinese or Indian machine learning researchers who would use a different term than AGI in their native language?
If your takeaway is only that you should have fatter tails on the outcomes of an aspiring rationality community, then I don't object.
If "I got some friends together and we all decided to be really dedicatedly rational" is intended as a description of Ziz and co, I think it is a at least missing many crucial elements, and generally not a very good characterization.
I think this post cleanly and accurately elucidates a dynamic in conversations about consciousness. I hadn't put my finger on this before reading this post, and I noe think about it every time I hear or participate in a discussion about consciousness.
Short, as near as I can tell, true, and important. This expresses much of my feeling about the world.
Perhaps one of the more moving posts I've read recently, of direct relevance to many of us.
I appreciate the simplicity and brevity in expressing a regret that resonate strongly with.
The general exercised of reviewing prior debate, now that ( some of ) the evidence is come in, seems very valuable, especially if one side of the debate is making high level claims that their veiw has been vindicated.
That said, I think there were several points in this post where I thought the author's read of the current evidence is/was off or mistaken. I think this overall doesn't detract too much from the value of the post, especially because it prompted discussion in the comments.
I don't remember the context in detail, so I might be mistaken about Scott's specific claims. But I currently think this is a misleading characterization.
Its conflating two distinct phenomena, namely non-mystical cult leader-like charisma / reality distortion fields, on the one hand, and metaphysical psychic powers, on the other, under the label "spooky mind powers", to imply someone is reasoning in bad faith or at least inconsistently.
It's totally consistent to claim that the first thing is happening, while also criticizing someone for believing that the second thing is happening. Indeed, this seems like a correct read of the situation to me, and therefore a natural way to interpret Scott's claims.
I think about this post several times a year when evaluating plans.
(Or actually, I think about a nearby concept that Nate voiced in person to me, about doing things that you actually believe in, in your heart. But this is the public handle for that.)
I've sometimes said that dignity in the first skill I learned (often to the surprise of others, since I am so willing to look silly or dumb or socially undignified). Part of my original motivation for bothering to intervene on x-risk, is that it would be beneath my dignity to live on a planet with an impending intelligence explosion on track to wipe out the future, and not do anything about it.
I think Ben's is a pretty good description of what it means for me, modulo that the "respect" in question is not at all social. It's entirely about my relationship with myself. My dignity or not is often not visible to others at all.