21 ms·

> Humans can be incredibly cruel, but they still have some level of humanity History is filled with seeming counter-examples. > they need to believe in some i

> Humans can be incredibly cruel, but they still have some level of humanity History is filled with seeming counter-examples. > they need to believe in some ideology that justifies their behaviour. "Your people are inferior to my people and do not deserve to live." I know I'm Godwin's Law-ing this, but you're close to wishing Pol Pot & Stalin away.

int_19h 4y ago
I don't see that in OP's comment. Pol Pot and Stalin still justified their actions to themselves. In general, the point is that, aside from a small percentage of genuine sociopaths, you need to brainwash most people into some kind of religious and/or ideological framework to get them to do the really nasty stuff at scale. Remember this Himmler speech to SS? "I am now referring to the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people. It's one of those things that is easily said: 'The Jewish people are being exterminated', says every party member, 'this is very obvious, it's in our program, elimination of the Jews, extermination, we're doing it, hah, a small matter.' And then they turn up, the upstanding 80 million Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. They say the others are all swines, but this particular one is a splendid Jew. But none has observed it, endured it. Most of you here know what it means when 100 corpses lie next to each other, when there are 500 or when there are 1,000." This does not preclude atrocities, obviously. But it does make them much more costly to perpetrate, and requires more time to plan and condition the participants, all of which reduces both the likelihood and the potential scope.
- notahacker 4y ago
  I think the point isn't that that we're so good at brainwashing other humans into committing atrocities it's difficult to see what AI adds (the sort of societies that are somewhat resistant to being brainwashed into tyranny are also pretty resistant to a small group of tyrants having a monopoly on dangerous weapons)
  - int_19h 4y ago
    I wouldn't say that democratic societies are resistant to concentration of monopoly on violence in a small group of people. Just look at police militarization in US. As far as brainwashing - we're pretty good at it, but it still takes considerable time and effort, and you need to control enough mass media first to maintain it for the majority of the population. With an AI, you can train it on a dataset that will firmly embed such notions from the get-go.
- avisser 4y ago
  > I don't see that in OP's comment. I don't know what "that" is. I quoted the post I was responding to.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    By "that" I meant "wishing Pol Pot & Stalin away". That aside, I tried to address both points that you quoted.

int_19h 4y ago

I don't see that in OP's comment. Pol Pot and Stalin still justified their actions to themselves. In general, the point is that, aside from a small percentage of genuine sociopaths, you need to brainwash most people into some kind of religious and/or ideological framework to get them to do the really nasty stuff at scale. Remember this Himmler speech to SS? "I am now referring to the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people. It's one of those things that is easily said: 'The Jewish people are being exterminated', says every party member, 'this is very obvious, it's in our program, elimination of the Jews, extermination, we're doing it, hah, a small matter.' And then they turn up, the upstanding 80 million Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. They say the others are all swines, but this particular one is a splendid Jew. But none has observed it, endured it. Most of you here know what it means when 100 corpses lie next to each other, when there are 500 or when there are 1,000." This does not preclude atrocities, obviously. But it does make them much more costly to perpetrate, and requires more time to plan and condition the participants, all of which reduces both the likelihood and the potential scope.

notahacker 4y ago
I think the point isn't that that we're so good at brainwashing other humans into committing atrocities it's difficult to see what AI adds (the sort of societies that are somewhat resistant to being brainwashed into tyranny are also pretty resistant to a small group of tyrants having a monopoly on dangerous weapons)
- int_19h 4y ago
  I wouldn't say that democratic societies are resistant to concentration of monopoly on violence in a small group of people. Just look at police militarization in US. As far as brainwashing - we're pretty good at it, but it still takes considerable time and effort, and you need to control enough mass media first to maintain it for the majority of the population. With an AI, you can train it on a dataset that will firmly embed such notions from the get-go.
avisser 4y ago
> I don't see that in OP's comment. I don't know what "that" is. I quoted the post I was responding to.
- int_19h 4y ago
  By "that" I meant "wishing Pol Pot & Stalin away". That aside, I tried to address both points that you quoted.