4 ms·

You are cherry picking the single most absurd event in a history of over 20 years of public discussion of AI catastrophic risk. Only about .0003 of all public

You are cherry picking the single most absurd event in a history of over 20 years of public discussion of AI catastrophic risk. Only about .0003 of all public discussion of AI catastrophic risk over those 20 years has invoked or referred to Roko's basilisk in any way. I don't know of anyone worried about AI who is worried mainly because of the basilisk. Next you'll mention Pascal's Mugging, which likewise is the main worry of exactly zero of the sane people worried about AI -- and (despite the representations of at least one past comment on this site) was never even a component of any argument for the dangerousness of continued "progress" in AI.

sumeno 1y ago
So you agree that there is more than "a single person worr[ied] about AIs taking over humanity." I was specifically pointing out how absurd the most ridiculous people in that category are
- hollerith 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - sumeno 1y ago
    Because it is still relevant today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zizians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zizians
    - hollerith 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - davidgerard 1y ago
        that's a truly amazing example that just happened to spring to the forefront of your mind to throw into the discussion
        hollerith 1y ago
        I merely repeated one of the distortions of events from ancient history that was used more than once on this site in recent months to try to smear the Berkeley rationalists. I think it illustrates the lazy ad hominem tactics of those who are made uncomfortable by any talk of catastrophic risks from continued "progress" in this decade's shiniest technology. I should add by way of explanation that there is a close connection between those who see continued "progress" in AI as very risky and the Berkeley rationalists: in fact, the writings that form the core of the rationalist movement (very analogous to how Paul Graham's writings form the core of HN) were written to try to enable more people to appreciate the riskiness of AI "progress" -- and those with a strong emotional or ideological attachment to (or financial interest in) continued AI "progress" know about this connection, which is why they like to try to smear the rationalists.
      - sumeno 1y ago
        You're projecting an absolutely wild amount of stuff here

sumeno 1y ago

So you agree that there is more than "a single person worr[ied] about AIs taking over humanity." I was specifically pointing out how absurd the most ridiculous people in that category are

hollerith 1y ago
[flagged]
- sumeno 1y ago
  Because it is still relevant today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zizians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zizians
  - hollerith 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - davidgerard 1y ago
      that's a truly amazing example that just happened to spring to the forefront of your mind to throw into the discussion
      - hollerith 1y ago
        I merely repeated one of the distortions of events from ancient history that was used more than once on this site in recent months to try to smear the Berkeley rationalists. I think it illustrates the lazy ad hominem tactics of those who are made uncomfortable by any talk of catastrophic risks from continued "progress" in this decade's shiniest technology. I should add by way of explanation that there is a close connection between those who see continued "progress" in AI as very risky and the Berkeley rationalists: in fact, the writings that form the core of the rationalist movement (very analogous to how Paul Graham's writings form the core of HN) were written to try to enable more people to appreciate the riskiness of AI "progress" -- and those with a strong emotional or ideological attachment to (or financial interest in) continued AI "progress" know about this connection, which is why they like to try to smear the rationalists.
    - sumeno 1y ago
      You're projecting an absolutely wild amount of stuff here