5 ms·

Why Technologists Fail to Think of Moderation as a Virtue

91 points by hunglee2 7y ago

contingencies 7y ago
TLDR: Philosophy professor wonders whether capitalism is a good idea.
- coldtea 7y ago
  Many people wonder that, even more frequently...
  - Mountain_Skies 7y ago
    Even more people would be open to wondering that if they weren't already worried about the pre-selected alternative.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
Santosh83 7y ago
Their inherent nature is to explore what is possible and push the boundaries, hence moderation sounds as a death knell to them. Obviously we're still confined to finite planet so ideal should be high technology combined with low consumerism.
buboard 7y ago
Why Journalists Fail to Think of Moderation as a Virtue
- gisely 7y ago
  Why Hackernews Commenters Fail to Moderate Their Criticism of Journalists
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  I would say their biggest issue is that they think moderation is a virtue in everything as a golden mean fallacy no matter how good or bad they are for fear of being perceived as capable of judgement.
  - buboard 7y ago
    i think they are just trying to drag the overton window so that any tech will be called "extreme". If anything we live in the age of unambitious Technologists, they used to be much more radical in past decades.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mjw1007 7y ago
« Chiang thus argues Musk’s doomsday scenario isn’t a useful tool for thinking critically about the risks AI poses. The thought experiment is poisoned by projection, reflecting a libertarian desire to free corporations from regulatory constraints that impede market growth. » If I understand it correctly, this is saying: - people like Elon Musk worry about AI risk because the hypothetical out-of-control AI would be thinking a bit like they do; - therefore we shouldn't worry about AI risk. I don't see why anyone should find that line of reasoning convincing. At most I think it gets us as far as "we shouldn't consider people like Elon Musk as authorities on AI risk". Wouldn't it be better to look directly at whether the runaway AI scenario is plausible?
- gorpovitch 7y ago
  I think the goal of the argument is to explain the following : the reason an exponentially growing and empowered AI entity is dangerous is exactly the same reason current big tech monopolies are dangerous and have to be regulated. The discussion about strong AI is interesting but misses the essential debate that is about current AI-powered megacompanies.
- smogcutter 7y ago
  The argument in the quote is that the whole thing is a libertarian power fantasy. It’s not that Musk fears AI bc the hypothetical runaway computer will think like him. Hard to restate without reusing the word projection, but it’s more like that his concept of AI risk itself says more about him than it does about future technologies. Weird example, but it’s kind of like how in Dr. Strangelove General Ripper’s fear of a soviet plot to emasculate us via fluoride has everything to do with Ripper’s own feelings re his balls and nothing at all to do with the actual soviets.
- rytill 7y ago
  You’re absolutely right, I’m not sure the other commenters know to which argument you’re referring. It’s ridiculous to think Bill Gates and Elon Musk are worried about AI because “we would stop at nothing to achieve our goals, AI must be the same way”, and also not on-point even if true. Elon Musk and Bill Gates aren’t thought leaders in AI safety, they are proponents.
SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
I feel like this article is responding to a strawman. As far as I can tell, nobody in Possible Minds is arguing that corporations should never be restricted or that nobody should think about regulation. They're just saying that controlling AI is a critical problem in and of itself, which won't be solved by just controlling the corporations who build AI systems. "Long before existentially troubling control problems will arise [...] these mediators will shape an immense number of decisions" - certainly a true statement! But true in the same way that Enron can create an immense fraud long before the energy market causes existentially troubling climate change problems. It would be hopelessly silly to read a book on climate change and respond that it should have been about accounting regulations. (Sidebar: I don't think the title was cut off in quite the right place. "Moderation as a virtue" is a reference to one particular criticism by Ted Chiang and isn't really a good summary of what this article is responding to.)
perl4ever 7y ago
Moderation like not being extreme, or moderation in the sense of censoring a forum? I guess it could apply either way.

91 points by hunglee2 7y ago

contingencies 7y ago

TLDR: Philosophy professor wonders whether capitalism is a good idea.

coldtea 7y ago
Many people wonder that, even more frequently...
- Mountain_Skies 7y ago
  Even more people would be open to wondering that if they weren't already worried about the pre-selected alternative.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

Santosh83 7y ago

Their inherent nature is to explore what is possible and push the boundaries, hence moderation sounds as a death knell to them. Obviously we're still confined to finite planet so ideal should be high technology combined with low consumerism.

buboard 7y ago

Why Journalists Fail to Think of Moderation as a Virtue

gisely 7y ago
Why Hackernews Commenters Fail to Moderate Their Criticism of Journalists
Nasrudith 7y ago
I would say their biggest issue is that they think moderation is a virtue in everything as a golden mean fallacy no matter how good or bad they are for fear of being perceived as capable of judgement.
- buboard 7y ago
  i think they are just trying to drag the overton window so that any tech will be called "extreme". If anything we live in the age of unambitious Technologists, they used to be much more radical in past decades.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

mjw1007 7y ago

« Chiang thus argues Musk’s doomsday scenario isn’t a useful tool for thinking critically about the risks AI poses. The thought experiment is poisoned by projection, reflecting a libertarian desire to free corporations from regulatory constraints that impede market growth. » If I understand it correctly, this is saying: - people like Elon Musk worry about AI risk because the hypothetical out-of-control AI would be thinking a bit like they do; - therefore we shouldn't worry about AI risk. I don't see why anyone should find that line of reasoning convincing. At most I think it gets us as far as "we shouldn't consider people like Elon Musk as authorities on AI risk". Wouldn't it be better to look directly at whether the runaway AI scenario is plausible?

gorpovitch 7y ago
I think the goal of the argument is to explain the following : the reason an exponentially growing and empowered AI entity is dangerous is exactly the same reason current big tech monopolies are dangerous and have to be regulated. The discussion about strong AI is interesting but misses the essential debate that is about current AI-powered megacompanies.
smogcutter 7y ago
The argument in the quote is that the whole thing is a libertarian power fantasy. It’s not that Musk fears AI bc the hypothetical runaway computer will think like him. Hard to restate without reusing the word projection, but it’s more like that his concept of AI risk itself says more about him than it does about future technologies. Weird example, but it’s kind of like how in Dr. Strangelove General Ripper’s fear of a soviet plot to emasculate us via fluoride has everything to do with Ripper’s own feelings re his balls and nothing at all to do with the actual soviets.
rytill 7y ago
You’re absolutely right, I’m not sure the other commenters know to which argument you’re referring. It’s ridiculous to think Bill Gates and Elon Musk are worried about AI because “we would stop at nothing to achieve our goals, AI must be the same way”, and also not on-point even if true. Elon Musk and Bill Gates aren’t thought leaders in AI safety, they are proponents.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

I feel like this article is responding to a strawman. As far as I can tell, nobody in Possible Minds is arguing that corporations should never be restricted or that nobody should think about regulation. They're just saying that controlling AI is a critical problem in and of itself, which won't be solved by just controlling the corporations who build AI systems. "Long before existentially troubling control problems will arise [...] these mediators will shape an immense number of decisions" - certainly a true statement! But true in the same way that Enron can create an immense fraud long before the energy market causes existentially troubling climate change problems. It would be hopelessly silly to read a book on climate change and respond that it should have been about accounting regulations. (Sidebar: I don't think the title was cut off in quite the right place. "Moderation as a virtue" is a reference to one particular criticism by Ted Chiang and isn't really a good summary of what this article is responding to.)

perl4ever 7y ago

Moderation like not being extreme, or moderation in the sense of censoring a forum? I guess it could apply either way.