Well, it might conceivably be worth asking the question “Does the Singularity hypothesis share enough features with religious hypotheses that organizations dedicated to thinking about it run a significant risk of demonstrating other attributes of religious/theological organizations?”
Along with the related “If so, would that be a bad thing, and what could we do to mitigate that risk?”
That said, my own answers are “Not especially, although some of the same sorts of people who would otherwise be attracted to religious concept-clusters will become attracted to Singularitarian concept-clusters for this reason, as the latter become more popular.” and “It’s not ideal, but it’s tolerable. As long as we’re careful to distinguish between reasoning and confabulating, we should be OK.”
And if I’m right, then this isn’t a particularly important question to devote energy to.
And if I’m right, then this isn’t a particularly important question to devote energy to.
You’re forgetting the most important aspect of the issue. If there is a problem with technology-related existential risk, then it’s important to get high-status people to understand it and take it seriously. However, if the issue is automatically associated in the public mind with low-status people and presumed crackpots, this will become far more difficult. It doesn’t matter how good a case you have that the problem is serious, if its very mention will trigger people’s crackpot heuristics and make them want to distance themselves from you for fear of low-status contamination.
Though it seems like the easiest way to engage with that aspect is from the other direction: figure out what the high-status “paint” is and start engaging in discussions of the issue using that paint.
Though if “the Singularity” is already tarred with low status, then presumably this isn’t the right location to do that.
Well, it might conceivably be worth asking the question “Does the Singularity hypothesis share enough features with religious hypotheses that organizations dedicated to thinking about it run a significant risk of demonstrating other attributes of religious/theological organizations?”
Along with the related “If so, would that be a bad thing, and what could we do to mitigate that risk?”
That said, my own answers are “Not especially, although some of the same sorts of people who would otherwise be attracted to religious concept-clusters will become attracted to Singularitarian concept-clusters for this reason, as the latter become more popular.” and “It’s not ideal, but it’s tolerable. As long as we’re careful to distinguish between reasoning and confabulating, we should be OK.”
And if I’m right, then this isn’t a particularly important question to devote energy to.
You’re forgetting the most important aspect of the issue. If there is a problem with technology-related existential risk, then it’s important to get high-status people to understand it and take it seriously. However, if the issue is automatically associated in the public mind with low-status people and presumed crackpots, this will become far more difficult. It doesn’t matter how good a case you have that the problem is serious, if its very mention will trigger people’s crackpot heuristics and make them want to distance themselves from you for fear of low-status contamination.
I suppose.
Though it seems like the easiest way to engage with that aspect is from the other direction: figure out what the high-status “paint” is and start engaging in discussions of the issue using that paint.
Though if “the Singularity” is already tarred with low status, then presumably this isn’t the right location to do that.