3 ms·

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

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.

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.