4 ms·
These two things are not the same. On the decel side, you do have cult-like behavior in EA. But it is not opposed by another cult. E/acc vaguely gestures at b
by vonnik 3y ago
These two things are not the same.
On the decel side, you do have cult-like behavior in EA. But it is not opposed by another cult.
E/acc vaguely gestures at beliefs, but it’s a loose affiliation of people attempting to create an explicit movement out of something more emergent, which is a bunch of people and organizations independently seeking to create something new or powerful or money-making.
They are riding and reflexively adding momentum to a technological wave.
These are not two houses alike in dogmatism. You have a fear-based movement explicitly organized around safetyism, and at best a techno-capitalist dynamic where people kind of wave to each other in the neighborhood.
- PoignardAzur 3y agoI find your use of the word "safetyism" fascinating. It reminds me of the word "do-something-ism" that pops up in gun enthusiast circles after school shootings. Basically codifying into a word the assumption that an otherwise mundane sentiment is not welcome in this discussion because the usual conclusions of that sentiment are considered offensive.
- vonnik 3y agoI don't see how "offensive" is involved here. I am not offended by them. I simply disagree with their conclusions, which I believe are the result of fairly typical social and cognitive errors. Personally, I am neither convinced nor entertained by the group fantasy of AI apocalypse that entrances and motivates the safetyists. They want to save the world. They'll be very special if they do so. They also manage to play a special role by getting into the room where AI is made. That is, they aspire to be the priests of a dangerous AI god, and they only matter if they convince us of the danger. Some people accord them that role of priest, but I don't. I'm not aware of the "do-something-ism" word, but I can imagine that both school shootings and some proposals to prevent them could be bad in different ways. Just because something must be done, doesn't mean that any particular thing urged upon us by policy makers is the right thing to do.
- PoignardAzur 3y ago> I am not offended by them. > Personally, I am neither convinced nor entertained by the group fantasy of AI apocalypse that entrances and motivates the safetyists. [...] That is, they aspire to be the priests of a dangerous AI god, and they only matter if they convince us of the danger. I'm not trying to be snide, but I think maybe you're not quite clearheaded about how you feel about this group.
- vonnik 3y agoI actually admire other work that EAs do, but disagree with them and the broader safetyist coalition on this issue. There are critiques and negative evaluations that have nothing to do with offense. You've simply chosen the wrong word to describe a negative evaluation. And indeed, the contemporary habit of framing critique in terms of offense is a symptom of much larger problems in society. "Offense" is an unfalsifiable subjective state that is being used to widespread and pernicious effect. Nobody should really care what offends me (and by the same token, others).