7 ms·

Lesswrongers, eh?

wahnfrieden 4y ago
So what is the deal with their agenda here? Understanding that Lesswrongers are a conservative group with some radically authoritarian ideas The popularity of libertarianism with them also seems distinctly in favor of power hierarchies rather than the libertarian communist types. So when these viewpoints stoke fear I wonder what what kinds of solutions they are driving at
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- recuter 4y ago
  [flagged]
- Sharlin 4y ago
  Well, this is definitely the first time I’ve ever heard Lesswrongers described as conservative.
  - polygamous_bat 4y ago
    The only way I could parse it was the following logical chain: Lesswrongers definitely bend more libertarian than the rest of the population, and the common aphorism that "libertarians are just conservatives who like to smoke weed". Although, with a few conversations that I have had with the "alignment" enthusiasts gave me the impression that in their opinion, many of the hot button issues like climate change/social inequality/global poverty etc. are irrelevant and not worth spending time over, because AI alignment is a much more serious threat. In that view, 90% or more of their political position overlaps with the conservative crowd ("issue X/Y/Z is not worth our time, and we should just let it happen as it does now"). So I am not surprised an outsider may label them as conservative.
    - dr_dshiv 4y ago
      Yeah, libertarians who believe in universal basic income— yeah, that probably needs a new word. Capital-unism sounds awful enough
    - gcr 4y ago
      There are strong parallels between a belief in AI supremacy (roko's basilisk and the like) and belief in divine punishment (pascal's wager and the like). I've heard people mockingly describe superintelligence as "catholicism for nerds," so I could certainly entertain the idea that lesswrongers are conservative.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - theelous3 4y ago
      If i believed in socially progressive lib values, but thought a non-explicitly progressive issue was a major immanent threat... you'd consider me conservative for the structure of my priorities? Not following the logic at all here.
      - Sharlin 4y ago
        The GP does not. They just describe how some people might (and absolutely do!) follow that train of thought.
        theelous3 4y ago
        What specifically gives you that impression? They describe their experience talking to alignment people, characterise it with the 90% rule, and describe their preference for tackling the 90% issue as in line with apathetic or ideologically opposed to remedy conservatives. They then say they are not surprised outsiders might label them conservative - _just as they have_. They are describing their own view _and_ attributing their reasoning to others. But the argument isn't valid.
  - davidgerard 4y ago
    The rationalist subculture is where neoreaction incubated, and it's still full of neoreactionaries.
    - Sharlin 4y ago
      The last I saw (~10 years ago), the small but vocal neoreactionary minority (countable with the fingers of a single hand) of the lesswrong crowd went and founded their own blog (More Right, now defunct) and everybody else were happy to see them go if it meant less spamming Less Wrong with cringe stuff like race realism and pickup artistry. In all LW surveys to date, people who have identified as "conservative" or "reactionary" have been a tiny minority. There are many libertarians (whether "l" or "L" or whatever libertarianism means to different people), but the "liberal/social democrat" block is the largest. With regard to American party affiliation, the large majority lean Democrat. Most are atheist and lean consequentialist ethics, neither being a sign of conservative or reactionist values.
      - davidgerard 4y ago
        Dude, they're mask-off race scientists these days. Look at the ACX comments for example. Or at least two of the several recent scandals in EA.
        wahnfrieden 4y ago
        why do they hide it so well with simple tricks like surveys?
        davidgerard 4y ago
        because there's a difference between self-reporting on one hand, and observed behaviour and the confessions of those involved when they don't think anyone's watching on the other, e.g. https://archive.is/LA95f https://archive.is/LA95f
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
    In my experience, they do tend to have a remarkably authoritarian slant. Only in their view the people running everything and doing all the gatekeeping should be rational, intelligent people (like them, natch), not just whoever has the power to actually get these things done.
    - Sharlin 4y ago
      Well, they definitely do not identify as authoritarian according to the annual surveys. Very few claim to be conservative or reactionist, most are either libertarians, liberals or social democrats. Anyway, the rationalist community was never about people who were particularly rational, it was all about people recognizing their own irrationality and biases that inescapably comes with being equipped with a human mind. Of course, that does not mean it didn't attract people who thought it was about being a tribe of us, the rational and enlightened people vs them, the irrational plebs. Which is rather ironic, of course.
    - wahnfrieden 4y ago
      We have words for this already: technocracy, authoritarianism, etc. the liberals among them or capitalist libertarians don't round out the spectrum of political views when it comes to ideas that community popularly advocates. advocates for strong gatekeeping and violence against any public subversion of it, within a centralized power whether capital or state, is getting at different flavors of the same kind of tyranny that you'll end up with whether liberal, conservative, capitalist libertarian.
- dwohnitmok 4y ago
  I think you're looking at this through the wrong lens. There are a variety of issues that the Less Wrong community gets ironically wrong. But the agenda here is very simple: make sure AI doesn't kill us. They believe that earnestly. That is the end goal. Everything is in service of that not the other way around. And with how quickly AI is progressing I'm pretty onboard with that.
  - gcr 4y ago
    Let's flip this around a little. "The agenda of Christianity here is very simple: make sure the devil doesn't kill us. Christians believe that earnestly. That's the end goal. Everything is in service of that and not the other way around. And with how quickly the world is turning to shit, I'm pretty onboard with that." There's a blind devotion to a group's chosen x-risk event, alongside assigning infinite utility to that one goal at the exclusion of all other useful goals. That's an important hallmark of fundamentalism. I sincerely don't think it's a good thing.
    - altacc 4y ago
      Except gods and devils have never and will never exist but AI might. Although I think it incredibly unlikely that AI will ever be in a position to create a human exterminating Skynet totality and the discussions should be more about how humanity is affected by machine learning, as it has been by previous technological advances. The LessWrong community try to address bias but seem quite biased here by sci-fi writers.
      - gcr 4y ago
        Christians genuinely have the faith that gods and devils exist. It's a genuine belief, they're convinced by whatever evidence they see, even though outsiders don't necessarily understand. Maybe they're not 100% there, but that's okay - they plan for this low probability but important outcome by going to church, helping their neighbor, performing outreach, converting nonbelievers, discriminating against queers and bitching about homeless people, pretending to read bible, etc. You have faith that AGI will both exist and have similar power. That's your genuine belief, you've been convinced by the evidence that you see. Maybe you're not 100% there but that's okay - you plan for this low-probability but important event by reading up on machine learning, contributing to your community discussions, studying alignment, performing outreach, converting folks who don't believe in AGI, pretending to read Norvig textbook, etc. My point is that these two beliefs are related.

Lesswrongers, eh?

So what is the deal with their agenda here? Understanding that Lesswrongers are a conservative group with some radically authoritarian ideas The popularity of libertarianism with them also seems distinctly in favor of power hierarchies rather than the libertarian communist types. So when these viewpoints stoke fear I wonder what what kinds of solutions they are driving at

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
recuter 4y ago
[flagged]
Sharlin 4y ago
Well, this is definitely the first time I’ve ever heard Lesswrongers described as conservative.
- polygamous_bat 4y ago
  The only way I could parse it was the following logical chain: Lesswrongers definitely bend more libertarian than the rest of the population, and the common aphorism that "libertarians are just conservatives who like to smoke weed". Although, with a few conversations that I have had with the "alignment" enthusiasts gave me the impression that in their opinion, many of the hot button issues like climate change/social inequality/global poverty etc. are irrelevant and not worth spending time over, because AI alignment is a much more serious threat. In that view, 90% or more of their political position overlaps with the conservative crowd ("issue X/Y/Z is not worth our time, and we should just let it happen as it does now"). So I am not surprised an outsider may label them as conservative.
  - dr_dshiv 4y ago
    Yeah, libertarians who believe in universal basic income— yeah, that probably needs a new word. Capital-unism sounds awful enough
  - gcr 4y ago
    There are strong parallels between a belief in AI supremacy (roko's basilisk and the like) and belief in divine punishment (pascal's wager and the like). I've heard people mockingly describe superintelligence as "catholicism for nerds," so I could certainly entertain the idea that lesswrongers are conservative.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - theelous3 4y ago
    If i believed in socially progressive lib values, but thought a non-explicitly progressive issue was a major immanent threat... you'd consider me conservative for the structure of my priorities? Not following the logic at all here.
    - Sharlin 4y ago
      The GP does not. They just describe how some people might (and absolutely do!) follow that train of thought.
      - theelous3 4y ago
        What specifically gives you that impression? They describe their experience talking to alignment people, characterise it with the 90% rule, and describe their preference for tackling the 90% issue as in line with apathetic or ideologically opposed to remedy conservatives. They then say they are not surprised outsiders might label them conservative - _just as they have_. They are describing their own view _and_ attributing their reasoning to others. But the argument isn't valid.
- davidgerard 4y ago
  The rationalist subculture is where neoreaction incubated, and it's still full of neoreactionaries.
  - Sharlin 4y ago
    The last I saw (~10 years ago), the small but vocal neoreactionary minority (countable with the fingers of a single hand) of the lesswrong crowd went and founded their own blog (More Right, now defunct) and everybody else were happy to see them go if it meant less spamming Less Wrong with cringe stuff like race realism and pickup artistry. In all LW surveys to date, people who have identified as "conservative" or "reactionary" have been a tiny minority. There are many libertarians (whether "l" or "L" or whatever libertarianism means to different people), but the "liberal/social democrat" block is the largest. With regard to American party affiliation, the large majority lean Democrat. Most are atheist and lean consequentialist ethics, neither being a sign of conservative or reactionist values.
    - davidgerard 4y ago
      Dude, they're mask-off race scientists these days. Look at the ACX comments for example. Or at least two of the several recent scandals in EA.
      - wahnfrieden 4y ago
        why do they hide it so well with simple tricks like surveys?
        davidgerard 4y ago
        because there's a difference between self-reporting on one hand, and observed behaviour and the confessions of those involved when they don't think anyone's watching on the other, e.g. https://archive.is/LA95f https://archive.is/LA95f
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
  In my experience, they do tend to have a remarkably authoritarian slant. Only in their view the people running everything and doing all the gatekeeping should be rational, intelligent people (like them, natch), not just whoever has the power to actually get these things done.
  - Sharlin 4y ago
    Well, they definitely do not identify as authoritarian according to the annual surveys. Very few claim to be conservative or reactionist, most are either libertarians, liberals or social democrats. Anyway, the rationalist community was never about people who were particularly rational, it was all about people recognizing their own irrationality and biases that inescapably comes with being equipped with a human mind. Of course, that does not mean it didn't attract people who thought it was about being a tribe of us, the rational and enlightened people vs them, the irrational plebs. Which is rather ironic, of course.
  - wahnfrieden 4y ago
    We have words for this already: technocracy, authoritarianism, etc. the liberals among them or capitalist libertarians don't round out the spectrum of political views when it comes to ideas that community popularly advocates. advocates for strong gatekeeping and violence against any public subversion of it, within a centralized power whether capital or state, is getting at different flavors of the same kind of tyranny that you'll end up with whether liberal, conservative, capitalist libertarian.
dwohnitmok 4y ago
I think you're looking at this through the wrong lens. There are a variety of issues that the Less Wrong community gets ironically wrong. But the agenda here is very simple: make sure AI doesn't kill us. They believe that earnestly. That is the end goal. Everything is in service of that not the other way around. And with how quickly AI is progressing I'm pretty onboard with that.
- gcr 4y ago
  Let's flip this around a little. "The agenda of Christianity here is very simple: make sure the devil doesn't kill us. Christians believe that earnestly. That's the end goal. Everything is in service of that and not the other way around. And with how quickly the world is turning to shit, I'm pretty onboard with that." There's a blind devotion to a group's chosen x-risk event, alongside assigning infinite utility to that one goal at the exclusion of all other useful goals. That's an important hallmark of fundamentalism. I sincerely don't think it's a good thing.
  - altacc 4y ago
    Except gods and devils have never and will never exist but AI might. Although I think it incredibly unlikely that AI will ever be in a position to create a human exterminating Skynet totality and the discussions should be more about how humanity is affected by machine learning, as it has been by previous technological advances. The LessWrong community try to address bias but seem quite biased here by sci-fi writers.
    - gcr 4y ago
      Christians genuinely have the faith that gods and devils exist. It's a genuine belief, they're convinced by whatever evidence they see, even though outsiders don't necessarily understand. Maybe they're not 100% there, but that's okay - they plan for this low probability but important outcome by going to church, helping their neighbor, performing outreach, converting nonbelievers, discriminating against queers and bitching about homeless people, pretending to read bible, etc. You have faith that AGI will both exist and have similar power. That's your genuine belief, you've been convinced by the evidence that you see. Maybe you're not 100% there but that's okay - you plan for this low-probability but important event by reading up on machine learning, contributing to your community discussions, studying alignment, performing outreach, converting folks who don't believe in AGI, pretending to read Norvig textbook, etc. My point is that these two beliefs are related.