4 ms·

You're mixing bad things that Hubbard does and Eliezer doesn't with things that are done by both but are not obviously bad. It reads like a "Hitler also ate su

You're mixing bad things that Hubbard does and Eliezer doesn't with things that are done by both but are not obviously bad. It reads like a "Hitler also ate sugar" argument.

PaulHoule 4y ago
I bring up Hubbard because Hubbard documented his organization so well that he's a good target. There is a long list of other organizations that I could also find analogies with. It’s true Hubbard divided the world into ‘public’ who would have their bank accounts empty and ‘staff’ who, penniless, would be turned into worker drones. EY is not building that sort of machine. But Hubbard was operating at peak egalitarianism in the US and EY is operating at a time (and places) that have peak inequality. A Scientology whale gives a few million to the organization, the ideal EY whale is Sam Bankman Fried. Since it is money that is fungible and ‘makes the world go round’ he doesn’t need an army of worked drones when just one rich kid at Stanford or Cambridge can be quietly bled. Other groups to look at with apocalyptic ideology are the Symbionese Liberation Army (Why make worker drones when you can brainwash Patty Hearst?), People's Temple (...go to San Francisco), Heaven’s Gate, Aum Shinrikyo, etc. It amazes me that one of them hasn’t tried to assassinate an A.I. researcher yet.
- bondarchuk 4y ago
  This is not a response to Kinrany's argument, in fact your last line is doing exactly what you're accused of again. >Other groups to look at with apocalyptic ideology are the Symbionese Liberation Army (Why make worker drones when you can brainwash Patty Hearst?), People's Temple (...go to San Francisco), Heaven’s Gate, Aum Shinrikyo, etc. It amazes me that one of them hasn’t tried to assassinate an A.I. researcher yet. Not obviously bad: have apocalyptic ideology (might actually be a little bit bad, admittedly) Obviously bad but Eliezer et al. haven't done it: try to assassinate a researcher

You're mixing bad things that Hubbard does and Eliezer doesn't with things that are done by both but are not obviously bad. It reads like a "Hitler also ate sugar" argument.

PaulHoule 4y ago

I bring up Hubbard because Hubbard documented his organization so well that he's a good target. There is a long list of other organizations that I could also find analogies with. It’s true Hubbard divided the world into ‘public’ who would have their bank accounts empty and ‘staff’ who, penniless, would be turned into worker drones. EY is not building that sort of machine. But Hubbard was operating at peak egalitarianism in the US and EY is operating at a time (and places) that have peak inequality. A Scientology whale gives a few million to the organization, the ideal EY whale is Sam Bankman Fried. Since it is money that is fungible and ‘makes the world go round’ he doesn’t need an army of worked drones when just one rich kid at Stanford or Cambridge can be quietly bled. Other groups to look at with apocalyptic ideology are the Symbionese Liberation Army (Why make worker drones when you can brainwash Patty Hearst?), People's Temple (...go to San Francisco), Heaven’s Gate, Aum Shinrikyo, etc. It amazes me that one of them hasn’t tried to assassinate an A.I. researcher yet.

bondarchuk 4y ago
This is not a response to Kinrany's argument, in fact your last line is doing exactly what you're accused of again. >Other groups to look at with apocalyptic ideology are the Symbionese Liberation Army (Why make worker drones when you can brainwash Patty Hearst?), People's Temple (...go to San Francisco), Heaven’s Gate, Aum Shinrikyo, etc. It amazes me that one of them hasn’t tried to assassinate an A.I. researcher yet. Not obviously bad: have apocalyptic ideology (might actually be a little bit bad, admittedly) Obviously bad but Eliezer et al. haven't done it: try to assassinate a researcher