4 ms·

At least the saving/helping part is existent in his calculation of actions. A lot of people, most notably the ultrarich like the Zuckerbergs, would think it's n

by selmnoo 13y ago

At least the saving/helping part is existent in his calculation of actions. A lot of people, most notably the ultrarich like the Zuckerbergs, would think it's not even worth their time to deal with "crazy people". But anyway, I didn't think Eliezer's comment seemed especially objectionable. Life is all about making compromises and finding the right balance. Looking out for yourself can be, and should be a part of the process when you're deciding to help out something. If only for the chance to save the next person after you save the first one. :) Whereas you were, I don't know, shocked by Eliezer's cavalier attitude, I was touched that he at least tries to reason with people who can be reasoned with. I do think you should take a little bit of break. :) Be well, and take care!

matthudson 13y ago
I've thought about it, one part of what "shocked" me about it was the hubris inherent in the statement: "...someone I could save by argument.". As though those that cannot be "saved" are merely a passing fascination, not to be bothered with for fear of liability. I wasn't "shocked" by the way. However, I was largely responding to the tone- which I shouldn't have done. >"...most notably the ultrarich like the Zuckerbergs, would think it's not even worth their time to deal with 'crazy people'" I don't know the Zuckerbergs nor any other ultrarich people, so I suppose we'll have to take your word for it. > "Life is all about making compromises and finding the right balance. Looking out for yourself can be, and should be a part of the process when you're deciding to help out something." I mostly agree with this. I want to make it clear that I was responding to the attitude I saw in the comment (or at least what I perceived to be the attitude) that the mentally ill are objects of fascination until they expose you to civil liability. I think a bit more empathy is in order. > "I do think you should take a little bit of break. :) Be well, and take care!" Yeah, I think I'm done commenting on Hacker News. Take care, as well.
- Anderkent 13y ago
  >I've thought about it, one part of what "shocked" me about it was the hubris inherent in the statement: "...someone I could save by argument.". As though those that cannot be "saved" are merely a passing fascination, not to be bothered with for fear of liability. I read a completely different meaning from that statement. "not someone I could save _by argument_". I.e. no point arguing, even though there might be other ways to help them.
  - tekromancr 13y ago
    "If someone has a false belief but is otherwise logical, for example someone with different political opinions that they merely haven't thought about, then it might make some sense to enter into a debate. After all, at least one of you must be wrong, otherwise you would agree. But in a situation where someone's false beliefs are a result of mental illness, delusions, no amount of arguing will bring their worldview to a place that could be considered consistent with what is commonly known about objective reality." At least, that's how that sentience unpacked into my brain.

by selmnoo 13y ago

matthudson 13y ago

I've thought about it, one part of what "shocked" me about it was the hubris inherent in the statement: "...someone I could save by argument.". As though those that cannot be "saved" are merely a passing fascination, not to be bothered with for fear of liability. I wasn't "shocked" by the way. However, I was largely responding to the tone- which I shouldn't have done. >"...most notably the ultrarich like the Zuckerbergs, would think it's not even worth their time to deal with 'crazy people'" I don't know the Zuckerbergs nor any other ultrarich people, so I suppose we'll have to take your word for it. > "Life is all about making compromises and finding the right balance. Looking out for yourself can be, and should be a part of the process when you're deciding to help out something." I mostly agree with this. I want to make it clear that I was responding to the attitude I saw in the comment (or at least what I perceived to be the attitude) that the mentally ill are objects of fascination until they expose you to civil liability. I think a bit more empathy is in order. > "I do think you should take a little bit of break. :) Be well, and take care!" Yeah, I think I'm done commenting on Hacker News. Take care, as well.

Anderkent 13y ago
>I've thought about it, one part of what "shocked" me about it was the hubris inherent in the statement: "...someone I could save by argument.". As though those that cannot be "saved" are merely a passing fascination, not to be bothered with for fear of liability. I read a completely different meaning from that statement. "not someone I could save _by argument_". I.e. no point arguing, even though there might be other ways to help them.
- tekromancr 13y ago
  "If someone has a false belief but is otherwise logical, for example someone with different political opinions that they merely haven't thought about, then it might make some sense to enter into a debate. After all, at least one of you must be wrong, otherwise you would agree. But in a situation where someone's false beliefs are a result of mental illness, delusions, no amount of arguing will bring their worldview to a place that could be considered consistent with what is commonly known about objective reality." At least, that's how that sentience unpacked into my brain.