10 ms·

I 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 typi

by vonnik 3y ago

I 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 ago
  I 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).

by vonnik 3y ago

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 ago
I 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).