3 ms·

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 f

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.
  - Sharlin 4y ago
    Nope, they're just saying that some people worrying about hard AGI takeoff argue that alignment is a more important problem to solve than many others because a) an aligned AGI can help us solve all the other problems, and b) an unaligned AGI can make all the other problems irrelevant due to, well, human extinction. So if you have liberal values and consider a hard takeoff a likely near-to-medium-term scenario, then it's perfectly reasonable to argue that you should prioritize alignment research over almost anything else, because it's a critical instrumental goal for achieving all your other goals. This by no means makes you any less of a liberal, or more of a conservative. But people who are more interested in virtue signalling than results, and/or don't know about or believe in a hard takeoff scenario, may interpret this train of thought as "conservative" because it appears to not match the standard thought patterns that a good, card-carrying liberal is supposed to have.
    - wahnfrieden 4y ago
      what is the anti-state, anti-capital perspective on AGI safety?

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.
- Sharlin 4y ago
  Nope, they're just saying that some people worrying about hard AGI takeoff argue that alignment is a more important problem to solve than many others because a) an aligned AGI can help us solve all the other problems, and b) an unaligned AGI can make all the other problems irrelevant due to, well, human extinction. So if you have liberal values and consider a hard takeoff a likely near-to-medium-term scenario, then it's perfectly reasonable to argue that you should prioritize alignment research over almost anything else, because it's a critical instrumental goal for achieving all your other goals. This by no means makes you any less of a liberal, or more of a conservative. But people who are more interested in virtue signalling than results, and/or don't know about or believe in a hard takeoff scenario, may interpret this train of thought as "conservative" because it appears to not match the standard thought patterns that a good, card-carrying liberal is supposed to have.
  - wahnfrieden 4y ago
    what is the anti-state, anti-capital perspective on AGI safety?