3 ms·

> Yes? Obviously? I mean, I agree, obviously. My point is that most people don't. And I think for two reasons. The first and more important reason is that mo

by ke88y 3y ago

> Yes? Obviously? I mean, I agree, obviously. My point is that most people don't. And I think for two reasons. The first and more important reason is that most people aren't involved in The Discourse and don't want to be involved in The Discourse. That's probably 99.9% of the Silent Majority -- they simply don't want to talk about anything on HN or Twitter. They view it as a waste of time or worse. and they aren't wrong. I don't think I am changing any minds here and meanwhile the personal insults kind of suck my energy a bit. So it's mostly a waste of time. The second reason is that some don't even want to even pseudo-anonymously say something that might get them into deep water at work. I'm obviously not describing myself, of course. I am here, aren't I :) But I am describing the vast majority of scientists. Keep in mind that most people don't dream of being on the proverbial TED stage and that those who do disproportionately end up on the stage and therefore determine what The Discourse will be. Big Egos == "my work is existentially important" == all the yelling about x-risk. It's mostly ego.

kalkin 3y ago
It's a bit cheeky of you to be complaining about personal insults while the substance of your OP was the assertion that x-risk worriers are motivated by ego rather than real thought.
- ke88y 3y ago
  I considered that when replying. I don't think I am making a personal criticism just for the sake of it, or an ad hom. And I do think the observation I am making is interesting. I don't mean it as a personal attack. Really. Suppose what I am saying is true -- that relatively unknown people rolling their eyes or laughing and relatively known people being very earnestly concerned. And that these are people with otherwise similar credentials, at least as far as assessing x-risk is concerned. Maybe you disagree, and that's okay, and there are other threads where that discuss is ongoing. But here let's assume it's true, because I think it is and that's relevant to your fair criticism. Like, it is a weird thing, right? Normally famous scientists and CEOs are not so far out ahead of the field on things like this. More often than not it's the opposite. To have that particular set of people so far out of stride isn't particularly normal. I think the common thread that differentiates similarly-senior people on the x-risk question is not experience, or temperament, or scope of responsibility. Or even necessarily the substance of what they believe if you sit down and listen and probe what they really mean when thy say there is or isn't x-risk from AI! The difference is mostly amount of Ego and how much they want to be in The Discourse. Also: I don't think that having a large ego is necessarily a character flaw, any more than having a strong appetite or needing more/less sleep. It's just how some people are, and that's okay, and people with big egos can be good or bad people, and circumstantially ego can be good or bad. But people who have bigger egos do behave a bit differently sometimes. Anyways, I'm not trying to assassinate anyone's character or even necessarily mount an ad hom dismissal of x-risk. I'm observing something which I think is true, and doing it in as polite a way as I can even though it's a bit of an uncomfortable thing to say. I guess what I'm trying to say is that "maybe this personality trait explains a weird phenomenon of certain types of experts clustering on an issue", and it's worth saying if you think it might be true, even if that personality trait has (imo perhaps overly) negative connotations. And in any case this is substantially different from "you're an idiot because I disagree with you".

by ke88y 3y ago

kalkin 3y ago

It's a bit cheeky of you to be complaining about personal insults while the substance of your OP was the assertion that x-risk worriers are motivated by ego rather than real thought.

ke88y 3y ago
I considered that when replying. I don't think I am making a personal criticism just for the sake of it, or an ad hom. And I do think the observation I am making is interesting. I don't mean it as a personal attack. Really. Suppose what I am saying is true -- that relatively unknown people rolling their eyes or laughing and relatively known people being very earnestly concerned. And that these are people with otherwise similar credentials, at least as far as assessing x-risk is concerned. Maybe you disagree, and that's okay, and there are other threads where that discuss is ongoing. But here let's assume it's true, because I think it is and that's relevant to your fair criticism. Like, it is a weird thing, right? Normally famous scientists and CEOs are not so far out ahead of the field on things like this. More often than not it's the opposite. To have that particular set of people so far out of stride isn't particularly normal. I think the common thread that differentiates similarly-senior people on the x-risk question is not experience, or temperament, or scope of responsibility. Or even necessarily the substance of what they believe if you sit down and listen and probe what they really mean when thy say there is or isn't x-risk from AI! The difference is mostly amount of Ego and how much they want to be in The Discourse. Also: I don't think that having a large ego is necessarily a character flaw, any more than having a strong appetite or needing more/less sleep. It's just how some people are, and that's okay, and people with big egos can be good or bad people, and circumstantially ego can be good or bad. But people who have bigger egos do behave a bit differently sometimes. Anyways, I'm not trying to assassinate anyone's character or even necessarily mount an ad hom dismissal of x-risk. I'm observing something which I think is true, and doing it in as polite a way as I can even though it's a bit of an uncomfortable thing to say. I guess what I'm trying to say is that "maybe this personality trait explains a weird phenomenon of certain types of experts clustering on an issue", and it's worth saying if you think it might be true, even if that personality trait has (imo perhaps overly) negative connotations. And in any case this is substantially different from "you're an idiot because I disagree with you".