Friendly Monkey

I see. Well, in case one of them reads this: to the extent it might matter to you, as a fellow radical vegan I request you not kill anyone trying to figure out how to make the first takeover-capable AI be benevolent.

(I'm aware that humans are such that it's not obvious that designer-chosen-alignment → benevolence, and that one does actually have to reason about that instead of just assuming the hopeful option, but after having reasoned about it, I think most would choose benevolence in the end.^[1] At least, I do not expect important exceptions to be alignment researchers, as opposed to selected-for power-seekers in high positions.)

1. ^{^}

   It seems to me that actually reflectively endorsing evil (objectively describing what's happening and then being like "this is good", instead of euphemizing and coping with arguments that often secretly amount to "if you're right then the world would be really bad, and that's scary" like "but nature has it") is rare, and most people are actually altruistic on some level but conformism overrides that and animal abuse is so normal that they usually don't notice it, but then when they see basic information like "cows have best friends and get stressed when they are separated" they seemingly get empathetic and reflective (check the comments).

I disagree but not confident I could write an explanation that's both legible and not losing lots of info by simplifying into "oppressed people more likely to want to oppose oppression". When I saw the question I was looking forwards to you writing a good answer to it, actually. To hint at some starting points, why is queer anarchism a thing? How do different minds decide who they are?

What can we do better the next time?

One lesson that occurs to me a day after reading this shortform is "figure out the lesson and apply it after the first time." For example, I now see people proposing to check in on one's Ziz-sympathetic friends and discourage killing humans. The rationalist community already had notice of something similar happening in Feb 2023, though.

P.S.: I suggest linking or copying this shortform to that thread so it's easier to find.

it would have cut no ice with Ziz. And why should it? An individual must choose whether to pursue peaceful or violent action

But this isn't me arbitrarily choosing peacefulness, I'm saying that killing ~random people is ineffective, this argument should go through for anyone who cares about effectiveness.

I can see a version of your argument that's limited to when peaceful actions are over-saturated enough that additional units of effort would be most effective when put into violent actions. I wouldn't be surprised to see historical examples of this across movements. (Obviously this claim wouldn't be particular to animal suffering reduction)

If we are going to be destroyed by Zizianism

I don't understand why rationalism would be destroyed by Zizianism. The murders have not been against rationalists. Do you mean, "If rationalism's reputation is damaged as a result of association"?