Your advice contains not a single instruction to promote intrinsic values. Your advice is as neutral as the laws of physics. The option of acquiring intrinsic value at the expense of your extrinsically valuable advice will continue to arise in intelligent and conscientious human minds. That is the technical debt that your advice creates.
The risk of dogmatically preventing even one case of true love between a grant-maker and a grantee is serious and you’re not taking it seriously.
The risk of dogmatically preventing even one case of true love between a grant-maker and a grantee is serious
Ah, the sexual needs of one outweigh the safety needs of many.
Who is preventing a “true love” here? It is enough if one of the two finds a new job. Maybe a similar role in a different company.
(If your objection is “but finding a new job can be quite difficult”, well, you are probably right, but that is an argument against calling such relations consensual.)
Without any response, I am left to my own devices to find my own take-aways about why this community would downvote me for that, and the most plausible take-aways are not charitable.
Edit: My comment is no longer below 1 karma; thank you.
That’s me downvoting, and a large part of why I downvoted it is because being neutral is actually important, and more importantly there’s a non-trivial cost to the freewheeling norms in search of true love such that I don’t think it’s worth the time to allow nearly as much freewheeling as EA/Rationalists has done.
So freewheeling seems like a policy that *usually* comes at the cost of intrinsic good. I do not have to promote freewheeling in order to prevent the loss of intrinsic good; the correct policy is something else but it should respect intrinsic values and strong moral clues.
I doubt that you think neutrality is *intrinsically* important. That does not mean it is not a strong clue about which choices are moral. I think that efficiency, robust strategy, winning, and accountability are strong moral clues which share this quality of not being intrinsically important.
That being said I am not even convinced that neutrality is a strong moral clue at all; I am interested in what stories you might have to tell me that would inspire me to see the relevance of neutrality.
“But it’s always a lot easier to say what not to do, than to get it right. And one of my fundamental flaws, back then, was thinking that if you tried as hard as you could to avoid everything the Bad Guys were doing, that made you a Good Guy.
Particularly damaging, I think, was the bad example set by the pretenders to Deep Wisdom trying to stake out a middle way; smiling condescendingly at technophiles and technophobes alike, and calling them both immature. Truly this is a wrong way; and in fact, the notion of trying to stake out a middle way generally, is usually wrong. The Right Way is not a compromise with anything; it is the clean manifestation of its own criteria.” — Eliezer Yudkowsky
Your advice contains not a single instruction to promote intrinsic values. Your advice is as neutral as the laws of physics. The option of acquiring intrinsic value at the expense of your extrinsically valuable advice will continue to arise in intelligent and conscientious human minds. That is the technical debt that your advice creates.
The risk of dogmatically preventing even one case of true love between a grant-maker and a grantee is serious and you’re not taking it seriously.
Ah, the sexual needs of one outweigh the safety needs of many.
Who is preventing a “true love” here? It is enough if one of the two finds a new job. Maybe a similar role in a different company.
(If your objection is “but finding a new job can be quite difficult”, well, you are probably right, but that is an argument against calling such relations consensual.)
What a strawman. Had you simply said that I was not seriously contending with safety, that would be fine.
An environment where people cannot express love for fear of censure is not safe by any non-puritan, non-culture-of-fear conception.
Without any response, I am left to my own devices to find my own take-aways about why this community would downvote me for that, and the most plausible take-aways are not charitable.
Edit: My comment is no longer below 1 karma; thank you.That’s me downvoting, and a large part of why I downvoted it is because being neutral is actually important, and more importantly there’s a non-trivial cost to the freewheeling norms in search of true love such that I don’t think it’s worth the time to allow nearly as much freewheeling as EA/Rationalists has done.
So freewheeling seems like a policy that *usually* comes at the cost of intrinsic good. I do not have to promote freewheeling in order to prevent the loss of intrinsic good; the correct policy is something else but it should respect intrinsic values and strong moral clues.
I doubt that you think neutrality is *intrinsically* important. That does not mean it is not a strong clue about which choices are moral. I think that efficiency, robust strategy, winning, and accountability are strong moral clues which share this quality of not being intrinsically important.
That being said I am not even convinced that neutrality is a strong moral clue at all; I am interested in what stories you might have to tell me that would inspire me to see the relevance of neutrality.
“But it’s always a lot easier to say what not to do, than to get it right. And one of my fundamental flaws, back then, was thinking that if you tried as hard as you could to avoid everything the Bad Guys were doing, that made you a Good Guy.
Particularly damaging, I think, was the bad example set by the pretenders to Deep Wisdom trying to stake out a middle way; smiling condescendingly at technophiles and technophobes alike, and calling them both immature. Truly this is a wrong way; and in fact, the notion of trying to stake out a middle way generally, is usually wrong. The Right Way is not a compromise with anything; it is the clean manifestation of its own criteria.”
— Eliezer Yudkowsky