4 ms·

he poses the idea of being earnest about something in a way that is disingenuous. > Why can't there be people interested in self-driving cars or social network

by zemo 6y ago

he poses the idea of being earnest about something in a way that is disingenuous. > Why can't there be people interested in self-driving cars or social networks for their own sake? If you are interested in self-driving cars, but you are not interested in the effects that self-driving cars have on society, you are not actually interested in self-driving cars: you are interested in yourself. To be interested only in the problem-solving aspect of a domain is, first and foremost, to be interested in your own mastery. I am not saying that it is bad to be motivated by mastery: I am personally very motivated by mastery. It's what has kept my interest after a decade of programming professionally. I relate to being interested in a problem because it's an interesting puzzle. But we should not pretend that being interested in the aspect of solving a problem is the most genuine manner of interacting with that problem (or the opposite: that caring about the side-effects of your work more than you care about the work itself is somehow lacking in earnesty). It is not. What you are building does not stop at the problem-solving phase. How the things you build affect the world is what you have done. If we set our ethical standard at "so long as I am interested in doing the building, I am being earnest", our efforts will forever be deployed by others, perhaps with effects that do not align with our values.

fractionalhare 6y ago
> If you are interested in self-driving cars, but you are not interested in the effects that self-driving cars have on society, you are not actually interested in self-driving cars: you are interested in yourself. To be interested only in the problem-solving aspect of a domain is, first and foremost, to be interested in your own mastery. This distinction seems completely semantic and vacuous. What do you call it if I'm interested in my own mastery, but only for some subset of all things I can have mastery in? Then we're right back where we started.
- zemo 6y ago
  > What do you call it if I'm interested in my own mastery, but only for some subset of all things I can have mastery in? specialization. I don't know why you thought this question was some sort of gotcha. I'm not rejecting the idea that someone can specialize or be a domain expert. I'm rejecting PG's argument that "being earnest" means "ignoring externalities".
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
tbrownaw 6y ago
If I'm interested in A but not how A affects B, then I'm actually just interested in C rather than A? That makes even less sense than saying that altruism doesn't really exist because altruists enjoy being altruistic. > If we set our ethical standard at "so long as I am interested in doing the building, I am being earnest", our efforts will forever be deployed by others, perhaps with effects that do not align with our values. Firstly, "earnest" here seems to be about "less likely to get distracted (and so fail to make money)" and has nothing whatsoever to do with what's ultimately to the most social good. Secondly, demanding control of everything downstream of you is a great way to get nothing done. You seem to be advocating that innovation should follow an ethic of "do not call up what you cannot put down", when "fail forward" has a history of working rather better.
- zemo 6y ago
  hmm, I think the way I worded that sentence is getting in the way of what I'm trying to say. Perhaps this is more clear: If you're interested in how something works (e.g. self-driving cars), but not what it does, you're not interested in the thing itself: what you are actually interested in is your own sense of mastery. > You seem to be advocating that innovation should follow an ethic of "do not call up what you cannot put down" Um, I've never heard this quote before but it looks like it's a Lovecraft quote? Was that ... said by one character to another character after they had summoned some sort of monster or other infernal being? Is ... is your argument that the monster is good if the monster pays you money? > "fail forward" has a history of working rather better. uh, define "working better". Better for whom? Along what dimension? Again, this really seems to be arguing that if your idea makes you rich, it is good.
stevofolife 6y ago
I think you misunderstood what earnest is. And more importantly the core of PG's argument. A genuine fixation or being earnest != interest. Earnest is way more than that. Showing interest is merely a step towards being earnest. It's easy to be interested in everything but it's hard to be earnest about something.

by zemo 6y ago

fractionalhare 6y ago

> If you are interested in self-driving cars, but you are not interested in the effects that self-driving cars have on society, you are not actually interested in self-driving cars: you are interested in yourself. To be interested only in the problem-solving aspect of a domain is, first and foremost, to be interested in your own mastery. This distinction seems completely semantic and vacuous. What do you call it if I'm interested in my own mastery, but only for some subset of all things I can have mastery in? Then we're right back where we started.

zemo 6y ago
> What do you call it if I'm interested in my own mastery, but only for some subset of all things I can have mastery in? specialization. I don't know why you thought this question was some sort of gotcha. I'm not rejecting the idea that someone can specialize or be a domain expert. I'm rejecting PG's argument that "being earnest" means "ignoring externalities".
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

tbrownaw 6y ago

If I'm interested in A but not how A affects B, then I'm actually just interested in C rather than A? That makes even less sense than saying that altruism doesn't really exist because altruists enjoy being altruistic. > If we set our ethical standard at "so long as I am interested in doing the building, I am being earnest", our efforts will forever be deployed by others, perhaps with effects that do not align with our values. Firstly, "earnest" here seems to be about "less likely to get distracted (and so fail to make money)" and has nothing whatsoever to do with what's ultimately to the most social good. Secondly, demanding control of everything downstream of you is a great way to get nothing done. You seem to be advocating that innovation should follow an ethic of "do not call up what you cannot put down", when "fail forward" has a history of working rather better.

zemo 6y ago
hmm, I think the way I worded that sentence is getting in the way of what I'm trying to say. Perhaps this is more clear: If you're interested in how something works (e.g. self-driving cars), but not what it does, you're not interested in the thing itself: what you are actually interested in is your own sense of mastery. > You seem to be advocating that innovation should follow an ethic of "do not call up what you cannot put down" Um, I've never heard this quote before but it looks like it's a Lovecraft quote? Was that ... said by one character to another character after they had summoned some sort of monster or other infernal being? Is ... is your argument that the monster is good if the monster pays you money? > "fail forward" has a history of working rather better. uh, define "working better". Better for whom? Along what dimension? Again, this really seems to be arguing that if your idea makes you rich, it is good.

stevofolife 6y ago

I think you misunderstood what earnest is. And more importantly the core of PG's argument. A genuine fixation or being earnest != interest. Earnest is way more than that. Showing interest is merely a step towards being earnest. It's easy to be interested in everything but it's hard to be earnest about something.