3 ms·

> Where are the actual counter-arguments in the article? It doesn't appear to attempt to make actual arguments. I think the article's mostly just an emotional

by _Nat_ 5y ago

> Where are the actual counter-arguments in the article? It doesn't appear to attempt to make actual arguments. I think the article's mostly just an emotional appeal. I'd speculate that the argument-like content is meant as flavoring, to make the raw emotionalism less unpalatable.

joe_the_user 5y ago
That's incorrect. The article is making the argument that "Longtermism" is weighing purely hypothetical (and basic incalculable) future things more than present things. Whether this argument is true or not, there is an argument here.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- rhaps0dy 5y ago
  I partly agree and disagree with your comment. It is true that the article says > that "Longtermism" is weighing purely hypothetical future things more than present things (please forgive the splicing). That is an accurate representation of longtermism as far as I can tell, because the future is inherently hypothetical (we don't know it yet). But this is not arguing that longtermism is true, or false, or beneficial, or harmful. It's just stating its content, and expecting that the reader becomes disgusted by it. The reason I spliced your comment is that the part > (and basic incalculable) is not necessarily true. The article does not really argue for or against the proposition of whether we can estimate the amount of future lives with any accuracy.
  - joe_the_user 5y ago
    > (and basic incalculable) The article does not really argue for or against the proposition of whether we can estimate the amount of future lives with any accuracy. Yes, the article makes that more or less tacit assumption that making decisions based on far hypotheticals is a mistakes. I think that's reasonable assumption that most people would agree with. I would also note that Bostrom and company never claim that they calculate the odds of their existential dangers. In Bostrome's book Superintelligence, he is clear that he cannot calculate any odds. The only thing they do is (implicitly) assume that it's possible to reason about the purely hypothetical in the fashion that one can reason about the clearly possible. But is something one argue against fairly plausibly; I don't know the odds of me getting sick or my car breaking down but because it's possible, I have to prepare for it. I can't use the same reasoning with chances of aliens landing or the sun exploding or any event where I don't have enough information to demonstrate it's plausibility as possibility, so to speak. And sure, I haven't proved aliens landing isn't a possibility.
- _Nat_ 5y ago
  The topic itself seems interesting, it's just the article itself that's of particularly poor quality. While there may be legitimate philosophical issues that could be addressed in a scholarly manner, I feel like the article is written like celebrity-gossip from a tabloid. Seems more about flinging mud than anything intellectual.

by _Nat_ 5y ago

joe_the_user 5y ago

That's incorrect. The article is making the argument that "Longtermism" is weighing purely hypothetical (and basic incalculable) future things more than present things. Whether this argument is true or not, there is an argument here.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rhaps0dy 5y ago
I partly agree and disagree with your comment. It is true that the article says > that "Longtermism" is weighing purely hypothetical future things more than present things (please forgive the splicing). That is an accurate representation of longtermism as far as I can tell, because the future is inherently hypothetical (we don't know it yet). But this is not arguing that longtermism is true, or false, or beneficial, or harmful. It's just stating its content, and expecting that the reader becomes disgusted by it. The reason I spliced your comment is that the part > (and basic incalculable) is not necessarily true. The article does not really argue for or against the proposition of whether we can estimate the amount of future lives with any accuracy.
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  > (and basic incalculable) The article does not really argue for or against the proposition of whether we can estimate the amount of future lives with any accuracy. Yes, the article makes that more or less tacit assumption that making decisions based on far hypotheticals is a mistakes. I think that's reasonable assumption that most people would agree with. I would also note that Bostrom and company never claim that they calculate the odds of their existential dangers. In Bostrome's book Superintelligence, he is clear that he cannot calculate any odds. The only thing they do is (implicitly) assume that it's possible to reason about the purely hypothetical in the fashion that one can reason about the clearly possible. But is something one argue against fairly plausibly; I don't know the odds of me getting sick or my car breaking down but because it's possible, I have to prepare for it. I can't use the same reasoning with chances of aliens landing or the sun exploding or any event where I don't have enough information to demonstrate it's plausibility as possibility, so to speak. And sure, I haven't proved aliens landing isn't a possibility.
_Nat_ 5y ago
The topic itself seems interesting, it's just the article itself that's of particularly poor quality. While there may be legitimate philosophical issues that could be addressed in a scholarly manner, I feel like the article is written like celebrity-gossip from a tabloid. Seems more about flinging mud than anything intellectual.