4 ms·
>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 ha
by 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 agoAnd 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 agoIt'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 agoYes, 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".