3 ms·

> Although full disclosure I'm short humans and very long paperclips. What a ludicrous world we live in where this is a socially acceptable view to hold.

alvah 7mo ago
What a ludicrous reply, to suggest it should be "socially unacceptable" to believe the Paperclip Maximizer thought experiment might reveal a scenario that is bad for humans overall.
- justonepost2 7mo ago
  Of course it would be bad for humanity. “Short humanity and long paperclips”, in my reading, is pro-extinctionism. The specter of Daniel Faggella haunts this site and this industry.
  - georgemcbay 7mo ago
    > pro-extinctionism I can only speculate as I didn't write that post, but by my reading they were just stating their belief that AI is likely to lead to human extinction, not that they were happy about that outcome.
CalRobert 7mo ago
Reality doesn’t give a shit about your beliefs, as the saying goes.
- justonepost2 7mo ago
  If your model of reality includes imminent human extinction, you have some form of imperative to do something about that other than “ZOMG Claude Code”. YMMV
  - CalRobert 7mo ago
    Are you saying that the comment _supported_ human extinction? I think they're just saying they think it's a likely outcome. It doesn't appear to be an endorsement. Personally, I think there's a worryingly high chance that ourselves or our kids will live in a dead, desertified, apocalyptic hellscape of a planet after we hit 5+ degrees of warming, but saying that doesn't mean I _want_ it to happen. In fact, I would prefer it not to!
    - justonepost2 7mo ago
      Pro-extinctionism (in favor of some “greater conciousness” that spreads across the stars) is a nontrivial minority view among AI people, including some “AI safety” leaders. One of the reasons that I’m slightly less worried about a climate apocalypse is that there isn’t an equivalent group of people that sees the “inevitability” and concludes that it must be a moral good for the planet to warm 5 degrees. I’d argue that multiple degrees of warming is more inevitable than paperclips, but there’s a serious global effort to mitigate and avoid it anyway!
      - CalRobert 7mo ago
        Yeah it’s a big issue, I just don’t read the comment you’re objecting to as supporting that. I mean I might think oil prices will go up but still choose not to buy oil stocks for moral reasons.
        justonepost2 7mo ago
        Given the OP’s general disposition towards AI in other comments I’m not convinced. But I’m happy to admit that absent proof I was being uncharitable— if so, my bad.

alvah 7mo ago

What a ludicrous reply, to suggest it should be "socially unacceptable" to believe the Paperclip Maximizer thought experiment might reveal a scenario that is bad for humans overall.

justonepost2 7mo ago
Of course it would be bad for humanity. “Short humanity and long paperclips”, in my reading, is pro-extinctionism. The specter of Daniel Faggella haunts this site and this industry.
- georgemcbay 7mo ago
  > pro-extinctionism I can only speculate as I didn't write that post, but by my reading they were just stating their belief that AI is likely to lead to human extinction, not that they were happy about that outcome.

CalRobert 7mo ago

Reality doesn’t give a shit about your beliefs, as the saying goes.

justonepost2 7mo ago
If your model of reality includes imminent human extinction, you have some form of imperative to do something about that other than “ZOMG Claude Code”. YMMV
- CalRobert 7mo ago
  Are you saying that the comment _supported_ human extinction? I think they're just saying they think it's a likely outcome. It doesn't appear to be an endorsement. Personally, I think there's a worryingly high chance that ourselves or our kids will live in a dead, desertified, apocalyptic hellscape of a planet after we hit 5+ degrees of warming, but saying that doesn't mean I _want_ it to happen. In fact, I would prefer it not to!
  - justonepost2 7mo ago
    Pro-extinctionism (in favor of some “greater conciousness” that spreads across the stars) is a nontrivial minority view among AI people, including some “AI safety” leaders. One of the reasons that I’m slightly less worried about a climate apocalypse is that there isn’t an equivalent group of people that sees the “inevitability” and concludes that it must be a moral good for the planet to warm 5 degrees. I’d argue that multiple degrees of warming is more inevitable than paperclips, but there’s a serious global effort to mitigate and avoid it anyway!
    - CalRobert 7mo ago
      Yeah it’s a big issue, I just don’t read the comment you’re objecting to as supporting that. I mean I might think oil prices will go up but still choose not to buy oil stocks for moral reasons.
      - justonepost2 7mo ago
        Given the OP’s general disposition towards AI in other comments I’m not convinced. But I’m happy to admit that absent proof I was being uncharitable— if so, my bad.