5 ms·
They also downplay global warming, nuclear war, wealth inequality, and in general anything other, less cool people they didn't want to identify with thought was
by vintermann 15d ago
They also downplay global warming, nuclear war, wealth inequality, and in general anything other, less cool people they didn't want to identify with thought was important.
If they had thought, yeah, "the majority is more or less right about what the big issues are", there wouldn't be enough room to construe themselves as uniquely intelligent.
- thevinter 15d agoWho are these "they" you're talking about? If your answer is EA or rats then a simple Google search will just show you that it's not true?
- vintermann 15d agoLabel them what you want. I'll go with EAs if you insist. Sure, they're not entirely monolithic. There's room for "EA, but vegan", "EA, but global warming still matters", maybe even "EA, but vaguely socialist". As I keep saying, the core belief is that they're special because of their intellectual superiority, anything else is negotiable.
- thevinter 15d agoNo, what you said what that "They also downplay global warming, nuclear war, wealth inequality" which is just a flat out lie
- vintermann 15d agoNot all of them downplay all of these, but yeah, most of them do. They may have one or two areas of dissent (for EA as a self-identity-building project, do you see why that is to be expected?), but there is a core of beliefs. Yudkowsky's. And he's downplayed all of these.
- tpm 15d agoI'm yet to see evidence they are weighing global warming they way it IMO should be weighted relatively to eg AI risk. I get it, it's not cool. Compare the number of posts of some EA-adjacent public people talking about AI and talking about this. Or what measure should we choose?