As far as I can tell, it is based on a whole bunch of wishful thinking intended to make the idea of Extrapolated Volition seem more plausible, by minimising claims that there will be goal conflicts between living humans. With a healthy dose of “everyone’s equal” political-corectness mixed in for the associated warm fuzzy feelings.
I recommend making this a top level post, but expand a little more on this implications of your view versus Eliezer’s and C&T’s. This could be done in a follow-up post.
Simply stating your opinion is of little value, only a good argument turns it into useful knowledge (making authority cease to matter in the same movement).
You are not making your case, Tim. You’ve been here for a long time, but persist in not understanding certain ideas, at the same time arguing unconvincingly for own views.
You should either work on better presentation of you views, if you are convinced they have some merit, or on trying to understand the standard position, but repeating your position indignantly, over and over, is not a constructive behavior. It’s called trolling.
I cited a detailed argument explaining one of the problems. You offer no counter-argument, and instead just rubbish my position, saying I am trolling. You then advise me to clean up my presentation. Such unsolicited advice simply seems patronising and insulting. I recommend either making proper counter-arguments—or remaining silent.
Remaining silent if you don’t have an argument that’s likely to convince, educate or at least interest your opponent is generally a good policy. I’m not arguing with you, because I don’t think I’ll be able to change your mind (without extraordinary effort that I’m not inclined to make).
Trolling consists in writing text that falls deaf on the ears of the intended audience. Professing advanced calculus on a cooking forum or to 6-year olds is trolling, even though you are not wrong. When people don’t want to hear you, or are incapable of understanding you, or can’t stand the way you present your material, that’s trolling on your part.
It does not say that trolling consists in writing text that falls deaf on the ears of the intended audience. What it says is that trolls have the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
This is a whole thread where we are supposed to be expressing “dissenting views”. I do have some dissenting views—what better place for them than here?
I deny trolling activities. I am here to learn, to debate, to make friends, to help others, to get feedback—and so on—my motives are probably not terribly different from those of most other participants.
One thing that I am is critical. However, critics are an amazingly valuable and under-appreciated section of the population! About the only people I have met who seem to understand that are cryptographers.
Are you suggesting that you still think that the cited material is correct?!?
The supporting genetic argument is wrong as well. I explain in more detail here:
http://alife.co.uk/essays/species_unity/
As far as I can tell, it is based on a whole bunch of wishful thinking intended to make the idea of Extrapolated Volition seem more plausible, by minimising claims that there will be goal conflicts between living humans. With a healthy dose of “everyone’s equal” political-corectness mixed in for the associated warm fuzzy feelings.
All fun stuff—but marketing, not science.
I recommend making this a top level post, but expand a little more on this implications of your view versus Eliezer’s and C&T’s. This could be done in a follow-up post.
Simply stating your opinion is of little value, only a good argument turns it into useful knowledge (making authority cease to matter in the same movement).
You are not making your case, Tim. You’ve been here for a long time, but persist in not understanding certain ideas, at the same time arguing unconvincingly for own views.
You should either work on better presentation of you views, if you are convinced they have some merit, or on trying to understand the standard position, but repeating your position indignantly, over and over, is not a constructive behavior. It’s called trolling.
I cited a detailed argument explaining one of the problems. You offer no counter-argument, and instead just rubbish my position, saying I am trolling. You then advise me to clean up my presentation. Such unsolicited advice simply seems patronising and insulting. I recommend either making proper counter-arguments—or remaining silent.
Remaining silent if you don’t have an argument that’s likely to convince, educate or at least interest your opponent is generally a good policy. I’m not arguing with you, because I don’t think I’ll be able to change your mind (without extraordinary effort that I’m not inclined to make).
Trolling consists in writing text that falls deaf on the ears of the intended audience. Professing advanced calculus on a cooking forum or to 6-year olds is trolling, even though you are not wrong. When people don’t want to hear you, or are incapable of understanding you, or can’t stand the way you present your material, that’s trolling on your part.
OK, then. Regarding trolling, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
It does not say that trolling consists in writing text that falls deaf on the ears of the intended audience. What it says is that trolls have the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
This is a whole thread where we are supposed to be expressing “dissenting views”. I do have some dissenting views—what better place for them than here?
I deny trolling activities. I am here to learn, to debate, to make friends, to help others, to get feedback—and so on—my motives are probably not terribly different from those of most other participants.
One thing that I am is critical. However, critics are an amazingly valuable and under-appreciated section of the population! About the only people I have met who seem to understand that are cryptographers.