3 ms·

> because they used logic and math, their analysis must be correct > belief in AI overlords ruling humanity, the technological singularity, cryogenics, or impe

> because they used logic and math, their analysis must be correct > belief in AI overlords ruling humanity, the technological singularity, cryogenics, or impending 1000-year human lifespans I don't think anyone on LW believes these are 'facts' that are 'correct'. LW commonly thinks of these ideas as risks / opportunites that might happen (except for the 1000-year human lifespans, which is a new idea to me), and that it's probably worth investing minor amounts of money in case it does. In case of cryonics, that's about $20/month for insurance that covers it; in case of AI safety, that's a couple people doing research on the problem, and some amount of money sent their way. The way you phrase it seems like LW people are certain that cryonics will definitely let them be revived after death. That's definitely not the case - in fact, IIRC, on a survey a year or two ago LWers subscribed to cryonics assigned lower probability of it working than ones not subscribed. It's not a cargo-cult.

jacobolus 11y ago
Substitute “plausible” for “correct” if you want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Either way it all so speculative as to be basically pure fiction. It reads very similar to me to various “scientific” defenses of particular religious traditions. Again, as I said, I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with this. Little communities of people should do whatever harmless hobby is fun for them. I just don’t find it very interesting or insightful. If people want to spend time and attention and resources on existential risks, how about the ones which are clear and imminent, like wealth inequality, the retreat of world democracy and increasing power of entirely unaccountable and amoral multinational corporations, or global climate change, e.g. http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatologists-0815/ http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sa...

jacobolus 11y ago

Substitute “plausible” for “correct” if you want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Either way it all so speculative as to be basically pure fiction. It reads very similar to me to various “scientific” defenses of particular religious traditions. Again, as I said, I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with this. Little communities of people should do whatever harmless hobby is fun for them. I just don’t find it very interesting or insightful. If people want to spend time and attention and resources on existential risks, how about the ones which are clear and imminent, like wealth inequality, the retreat of world democracy and increasing power of entirely unaccountable and amoral multinational corporations, or global climate change, e.g. http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatologists-0815/ http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sa...