As best I can tell so far (willing to keep learning) the entire AI professional community doesn't seem to grasp that, as of yet, there's not really a compelling case that their well intended efforts will be meaningful.
Frustrating, but fascinating.
Is there any intellectual within the AI realm who is willing and able to sail against this group think?
If yes, is there any chance we could get them in here so I don't have to keep typing this?
Singer's views seem to be essentially Christian, or like so much in Western culture, heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian morality. Please understand I am NOT arguing against this view, but only in the spirit of intellectual inquiry exploring another very different view.
The environmental movement advises us to look to nature for guidance, which seems very wise advice. I'm all for that, but the problem is, nature can be utterly ruthless.
What we are comparing here is a human designed moral philosophy which is something like 3,000 - 5,000 years old with a nature "designed" system of managing life which is something like a billion years old.
So, who to trust?
These little Johnny come lately human beings?
Or the ancient vast beyond imagination natural world?
Hitler and other psychopaths sided with the natural world in a remarkably clear minded manner. The nazis essentially said in a forthright manner, "We are the predator, and you are the prey, we are the strong and you are the weak".
And that's what nature says too. If you're weak, if you can't adapt, or adapt fast enough, too bad, you're out of here.
And as it turned out, the nazis were weak, and so they were out of here. But they left behind a little present. Nuclear weapons. So maybe that contest between good and evil isn't over yet?
So, I dunno. I'm certainly not going to endorse nazism. But I think we have to recognize that Christian morality is an argument with the natural world.
The Church itself took a pretty predatory position in regards to millions of innocents, and sadly, still seems to have that problem today. Could that be an argument that nature always wins in the end?
To keep it simple, let's assume that someone figures out how to make AI completely safe. Personally I feel such an assumption would be absurd, but anyway, for the sake of discussion let's assume it for the moment.
Why would such a success be meaningful if the knowledge explosion continues to generate ever more, ever larger powers, at an ever accelerating rate, without limit?
I keep asking this in every other thread to illustrate that....
I disagree that the problem here is groupthink, and I think if you look at highly rated posts, you can't reasonably conclude that people who criticise the orthodox position will be reliably downvoted
The highly rated posts I've seen so far, on the topic of X risk in particular, appear to me to typically be a product of group think. They're typically very articulate, very polished form, highly informed on details, (ie. good academic style) but not escaping group think.
As evidence, please direct us to the writers here who have been laser focused on the critical importance of managing the pace of the knowledge explosion. Where are they? If they exist, and I sincerely hope they do (because I don't have the authority to sell the case) I really would like to meet them.
In my opinion, group think is to some immeasurable degree built in to the fabric of academia, because academia is a business, and one does not stay in business by alienating one's clients. Thus, to the degree the academic depends on their salary, they are somewhat imprisoned within the limits of whoever is signing their paycheck.
Here's an example.
I can afford to persistently sell a "world without men" idea as an ambitious solution to human violence because nobody owns me, I have nothing of value at stake. Whatever the merits of such a case might be, (very clearly debatable) academics can't afford to make that case, because the group consensus of their community will not tolerate it. And before you protest, know that I've already been threatened with banning on this site just for bringing the subject up.
Academia is business, and is thus governed by fear, and that is the source of group think.
If you would, please down vote this post at least 100 times, as I believe I've earned it. :-)
I wouldn’t want anyone to come away from this post with the sense that maybe suffering doesn’t matter after all. That would be nuts!
I wouldn't want to be flippant or dismissive about human suffering, addressing it is certainly a worthy project.
But from a more detached perspective suffering might be seen as a necessary part of a holistic system. As just one example...
There is currently no evidence that we will ever liberate ourselves from the nuclear threat through a process of reason alone. What is needed to make this threat real to us, real enough so that we will act, is suffering. Pain.
Our bodies are built around pain mechanisms which provide essential information regarding what to do and not do.
I truly don't know, but suffering may not matter that much. It depends on how one sees the big picture. If I live on Earth for a hundred years, and in heaven for a billion, then that would put my human suffering in a quite different context. (PS: I'm not religious, just philosophical.)
What truly gives our lives dignity and meaning is to contribute, whether directly or indirectly, to cultural excellence.
This seems a reasonable path that one might choose to tread, but it doesn't seem to qualify as a universal truth binding upon all of us etc.
One answer he’s (Singer) drawn towards invokes the common wisdom that our lives are more meaningful insofar as we contribute to something larger than ourselves.
Bonding with something larger than ourselves does seem essential, contributing less so. All this contributing business seems built upon the assumption that people are what matter most. People are one thing we can bond with, not the only thing.
That which is larger than ourselves the most is the entire universe, and perhaps way beyond that too. What is it that we self absorbed tiny creatures think we are going to contribute to that? Humility might suggest we content ourselves with experiencing it.
Key to this interpretation is Huddleston’s observation that our objective "best interests" may come apart from both what we want and from what we believe to be in our interests.
A counter argument might be that what's in our best interest is to somehow transcend, however temporarily, the tiny prison cell of "me and my situation", "me and my situation", "me and my situation", or "I Me Mine" as George Harrison put it.
Jesus advised, "Die and be reborn". While I have no idea what he meant when he said those words, to me they mean, let go of abstractions like "me", and embrace the vast real world beyond the little symbols which point to it.
Thanks for your kind words, appreciated. How about this?
If anyone on the forum wishes to present themselves as being qualified to judge the quality of my posts, they can make a credible case as follows:
read the post
analyze the post
try to rip the post to shreds
and we'll see what happens
Meaning no disrespect to anybody, just trying to respond honestly...
I don't intend to ask the EA team for feedback because they have as yet not demonstrated (as above) that they are qualified to evaluate my posts, and it is they who implemented the silly voting system. And, they have already threatened to ban me over points I very explicitly did not make, as can be proven just by actually reading the post in question.
In addition, while I have no data to back this up, my sense from 27 years of doing this almost daily is that many or most members here are somewhere around a half to a third my age. If true, I don't see why I should automatically judge them qualified to generate useful reputation data on my participation here.
All that said, I am having some good exchanges such as this in the comment section, which I appreciate. So for now I'll stick to that, and let others write the posts.
Seems like a pretty excellent analysis, best I can tell.
I would like to add this prediction. The technology continually evolves, which is indeed interesting. But the people using the technology remain largely unchanged. So if one is bored on, say, Facebook, one will likely eventually be bored in VR as well, because it will be the same people doing and saying the same things, over and over again.
This post series would have become far more detailed if it had continued, which it will not. It's no biggie. I have the information involved, and others are free to find it on their own should they so choose.
Thank you for not being anonymous, and for explaining your down vote. That's all I've been requesting from the beginning. I agree my colorful language was an imprecise description of the situation.
PS: Holy cow, I got -24 from just 6 votes. That's awesome. I predict I will soon be the king of down votes! High school systems require high school participation.
As best I can tell so far (willing to keep learning) the entire AI professional community doesn't seem to grasp that, as of yet, there's not really a compelling case that their well intended efforts will be meaningful.
Frustrating, but fascinating.
Is there any intellectual within the AI realm who is willing and able to sail against this group think?
If yes, is there any chance we could get them in here so I don't have to keep typing this?
Singer's views seem to be essentially Christian, or like so much in Western culture, heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian morality. Please understand I am NOT arguing against this view, but only in the spirit of intellectual inquiry exploring another very different view.
The environmental movement advises us to look to nature for guidance, which seems very wise advice. I'm all for that, but the problem is, nature can be utterly ruthless.
What we are comparing here is a human designed moral philosophy which is something like 3,000 - 5,000 years old with a nature "designed" system of managing life which is something like a billion years old.
So, who to trust?
These little Johnny come lately human beings?
Or the ancient vast beyond imagination natural world?
Hitler and other psychopaths sided with the natural world in a remarkably clear minded manner. The nazis essentially said in a forthright manner, "We are the predator, and you are the prey, we are the strong and you are the weak".
And that's what nature says too. If you're weak, if you can't adapt, or adapt fast enough, too bad, you're out of here.
And as it turned out, the nazis were weak, and so they were out of here. But they left behind a little present. Nuclear weapons. So maybe that contest between good and evil isn't over yet?
So, I dunno. I'm certainly not going to endorse nazism. But I think we have to recognize that Christian morality is an argument with the natural world.
The Church itself took a pretty predatory position in regards to millions of innocents, and sadly, still seems to have that problem today. Could that be an argument that nature always wins in the end?
I have no idea....
To keep it simple, let's assume that someone figures out how to make AI completely safe. Personally I feel such an assumption would be absurd, but anyway, for the sake of discussion let's assume it for the moment.
Why would such a success be meaningful if the knowledge explosion continues to generate ever more, ever larger powers, at an ever accelerating rate, without limit?
I keep asking this in every other thread to illustrate that....
We don't have an answer to this.
The highly rated posts I've seen so far, on the topic of X risk in particular, appear to me to typically be a product of group think. They're typically very articulate, very polished form, highly informed on details, (ie. good academic style) but not escaping group think.
As evidence, please direct us to the writers here who have been laser focused on the critical importance of managing the pace of the knowledge explosion. Where are they? If they exist, and I sincerely hope they do (because I don't have the authority to sell the case) I really would like to meet them.
In my opinion, group think is to some immeasurable degree built in to the fabric of academia, because academia is a business, and one does not stay in business by alienating one's clients. Thus, to the degree the academic depends on their salary, they are somewhat imprisoned within the limits of whoever is signing their paycheck.
Here's an example.
I can afford to persistently sell a "world without men" idea as an ambitious solution to human violence because nobody owns me, I have nothing of value at stake. Whatever the merits of such a case might be, (very clearly debatable) academics can't afford to make that case, because the group consensus of their community will not tolerate it. And before you protest, know that I've already been threatened with banning on this site just for bringing the subject up.
Academia is business, and is thus governed by fear, and that is the source of group think.
If you would, please down vote this post at least 100 times, as I believe I've earned it. :-)
I wouldn't want to be flippant or dismissive about human suffering, addressing it is certainly a worthy project.
But from a more detached perspective suffering might be seen as a necessary part of a holistic system. As just one example...
There is currently no evidence that we will ever liberate ourselves from the nuclear threat through a process of reason alone. What is needed to make this threat real to us, real enough so that we will act, is suffering. Pain.
Our bodies are built around pain mechanisms which provide essential information regarding what to do and not do.
I truly don't know, but suffering may not matter that much. It depends on how one sees the big picture. If I live on Earth for a hundred years, and in heaven for a billion, then that would put my human suffering in a quite different context. (PS: I'm not religious, just philosophical.)
This seems a reasonable path that one might choose to tread, but it doesn't seem to qualify as a universal truth binding upon all of us etc.
Bonding with something larger than ourselves does seem essential, contributing less so. All this contributing business seems built upon the assumption that people are what matter most. People are one thing we can bond with, not the only thing.
That which is larger than ourselves the most is the entire universe, and perhaps way beyond that too. What is it that we self absorbed tiny creatures think we are going to contribute to that? Humility might suggest we content ourselves with experiencing it.
A counter argument might be that what's in our best interest is to somehow transcend, however temporarily, the tiny prison cell of "me and my situation", "me and my situation", "me and my situation", or "I Me Mine" as George Harrison put it.
Jesus advised, "Die and be reborn". While I have no idea what he meant when he said those words, to me they mean, let go of abstractions like "me", and embrace the vast real world beyond the little symbols which point to it.
Thanks for your kind words, appreciated. How about this?
If anyone on the forum wishes to present themselves as being qualified to judge the quality of my posts, they can make a credible case as follows:
Meaning no disrespect to anybody, just trying to respond honestly...
I don't intend to ask the EA team for feedback because they have as yet not demonstrated (as above) that they are qualified to evaluate my posts, and it is they who implemented the silly voting system. And, they have already threatened to ban me over points I very explicitly did not make, as can be proven just by actually reading the post in question.
In addition, while I have no data to back this up, my sense from 27 years of doing this almost daily is that many or most members here are somewhere around a half to a third my age. If true, I don't see why I should automatically judge them qualified to generate useful reputation data on my participation here.
All that said, I am having some good exchanges such as this in the comment section, which I appreciate. So for now I'll stick to that, and let others write the posts.
Seems like a pretty excellent analysis, best I can tell.
I would like to add this prediction. The technology continually evolves, which is indeed interesting. But the people using the technology remain largely unchanged. So if one is bored on, say, Facebook, one will likely eventually be bored in VR as well, because it will be the same people doing and saying the same things, over and over again.
This post series would have become far more detailed if it had continued, which it will not. It's no biggie. I have the information involved, and others are free to find it on their own should they so choose.
Thank you for not being anonymous, and for explaining your down vote. That's all I've been requesting from the beginning. I agree my colorful language was an imprecise description of the situation.
PS: Holy cow, I got -24 from just 6 votes. That's awesome. I predict I will soon be the king of down votes! High school systems require high school participation.