It means that when you can, try to be specific about the mechanisms of harm that are harm even to the people who would prefer to signflip. Sure, some people will signflip your advice for the lulz anyway, but it’s less vulnerable to it when the warning is about an outcome that is actually unwantable for a complexwanting being. It is the complex simplewanters that are the threat; those who want to spread disease for the mere reason that it’s an easier thing to achieve. especially if they’re hyperdesperate simplewanting superplanners.
I’ve seen people on Twitter explicitly advocate for acceleration on the basis that it speeds up max-entropy. I don’t know if it’s impossible to reach such people, but I don’t think optimizing communication to that end is worth it.
I think it’s plausibly worth trying to communicate things in ways that are legible to people who aren’t already adversarially posed to the entire effort; the costs are smaller and the benefits are larger. I think trying to flip e/acc randos is, if not hopeless, not a great use of cycles.
sure, but don’t help them figure out which capabilities work when it’s avoidable to make a point, even if those are fairly obvious—that’s really all I’m saying.
It means that when you can, try to be specific about the mechanisms of harm that are harm even to the people who would prefer to signflip. Sure, some people will signflip your advice for the lulz anyway, but it’s less vulnerable to it when the warning is about an outcome that is actually unwantable for a complexwanting being. It is the complex simplewanters that are the threat; those who want to spread disease for the mere reason that it’s an easier thing to achieve. especially if they’re hyperdesperate simplewanting superplanners.
I’ve seen people on Twitter explicitly advocate for acceleration on the basis that it speeds up max-entropy. I don’t know if it’s impossible to reach such people, but I don’t think optimizing communication to that end is worth it.
I think it’s plausibly worth trying to communicate things in ways that are legible to people who aren’t already adversarially posed to the entire effort; the costs are smaller and the benefits are larger. I think trying to flip e/acc randos is, if not hopeless, not a great use of cycles.
sure, but don’t help them figure out which capabilities work when it’s avoidable to make a point, even if those are fairly obvious—that’s really all I’m saying.