3 ms·

>>Every AI safety researcher knows about the paper clip maximizer. Few seem to grasp the ways this subculture is mimicking that tunnel vision. >Lol really?? Yo

by qsi 4y ago

>>Every AI safety researcher knows about the paper clip maximizer. Few seem to grasp the ways this subculture is mimicking that tunnel vision. >Lol really?? You're comparing some bad PR incidents to the literal unintentional destruction of life on Earth Your reply is a perfect example of the blind spot the quote from the article is referring to. "some bad PR incidents" being sexual harassment and assault, facilitated by the in-group doctrine, and the Paperclip Optimizer being a central tenet of the in-group, while for the real world it's a quaint and somewhat interesting hypothetical about a far off future. So we have real, actual harm hand-waved away by reference to a hypothetical.

yanderekko 4y ago
>So we have real, actual harm hand-waved away by reference to a hypothetical. Yes, because that harm is not even close to the same order of magnitude as the harm that rationalists are focused on, even if you discount it by a moderate likelihood factor. It doesn't matter if the "real world" sees AI doom as a "quaint and somewhat interesting hypothetical about a far off future" - unless you're actually agreeing with me that this is primarily a PR issue. When rationalist sexual harassment starts threatening the survival of the human race (in a way other than raising the probability of AI doom via bad PR for rationalists), the tunnel vision critique may become more than laughable.
- qsi 4y ago
  And yet again, you reinforce the same point! With more words and more eloquently, but still a perfect example of the same blind spot.
  - operatingthetan 4y ago
    It's like "the ends justify the means" except the means have nothing to do with the ends at all. The supporters just keep repeating themselves about saving the world or something.
  - yanderekko 4y ago
    Yes, well, I guess I just think that a rogue AI inadvertently destroying the world is a somewhat more worrisome form of tunnel vision than having a "blind spot".
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by qsi 4y ago

yanderekko 4y ago

>So we have real, actual harm hand-waved away by reference to a hypothetical. Yes, because that harm is not even close to the same order of magnitude as the harm that rationalists are focused on, even if you discount it by a moderate likelihood factor. It doesn't matter if the "real world" sees AI doom as a "quaint and somewhat interesting hypothetical about a far off future" - unless you're actually agreeing with me that this is primarily a PR issue. When rationalist sexual harassment starts threatening the survival of the human race (in a way other than raising the probability of AI doom via bad PR for rationalists), the tunnel vision critique may become more than laughable.

qsi 4y ago
And yet again, you reinforce the same point! With more words and more eloquently, but still a perfect example of the same blind spot.
- operatingthetan 4y ago
  It's like "the ends justify the means" except the means have nothing to do with the ends at all. The supporters just keep repeating themselves about saving the world or something.
- yanderekko 4y ago
  Yes, well, I guess I just think that a rogue AI inadvertently destroying the world is a somewhat more worrisome form of tunnel vision than having a "blind spot".

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]