What are you talking about? The Sequences are a pretty standard non-fiction book, mostly filled with technical explanations and clear prose. If you aren’t familiar with it, I do agree that I am kind of confused how you feel comfortable dismissing the arguments. It’s kind of like showing up on a computational complexity forum, saying that the arguments for P != NP are bad, without ever having read a computational complexity textbook.
A lot of your responses make you sound like you’re more interested in arguing and being contrarian than in seeking the truth with us. This one exemplifies it, but it’s a general pattern of the tone of your responses. It’d be nice if you came across as more truth-seeking than argument-seeking.
I came and asked “the expert concensus seems to be that AGI doom is unlikely. This is the best argument I am aware of and it doesn’t seem very strong. Are there any other arguments?”
Responses I have gotten are:
I don’t trust the experts, I trust my friends
You need to read the sequences
You should rephrase the argument in a way that I like
And 1 actual attempt at giving an answer (which unfortunately includes multiple assumptions I consider false or at least highly improbable)
If I seem contrarian, it’s because I believe that the truth is best uncovered by stating one’s beliefs and then critically examining the arguments. If you have arguments or disagree with me fine, but saying “you’re not allowed to think about this, you just have to trust me and my friends” is not a satisfying answer.
If I seem contrarian, it’s because I believe that the truth is best uncovered by stating one’s beliefs and then critically examining the arguments.
That’s your error. You should be aiming to let the important parts of reality imprint marks of themselves and their dynamics in your worldview.
Consensus might be best reached by stating one’s beliefs and then critically examining the arguments. But if you want to reach consensus, you also need to absorb other’s angles, e.g. their friends and the sequences and their framings and so on. (Assuming everyone trusts each other. In cases of distrust, stating one’s beliefs and critically examining arguments might simply deepen the distrust.)
If you have arguments or disagree with me fine, but saying “you’re not allowed to think about this, you just have to trust me and my friends” is not a satisfying answer.
If you think without contact with reality, your wrongness is just going to become more self-consistent.
I don’t know, because you haven’t told me which of the forces that are present in my world-model are absent from your world-model. Without knowing what to add, I can’t give you a pointer.
If your answer depends on me reading 500 pages of EY fan-fiction, it’s not a good answer.
What are you talking about? The Sequences are a pretty standard non-fiction book, mostly filled with technical explanations and clear prose. If you aren’t familiar with it, I do agree that I am kind of confused how you feel comfortable dismissing the arguments. It’s kind of like showing up on a computational complexity forum, saying that the arguments for P != NP are bad, without ever having read a computational complexity textbook.
A lot of your responses make you sound like you’re more interested in arguing and being contrarian than in seeking the truth with us. This one exemplifies it, but it’s a general pattern of the tone of your responses. It’d be nice if you came across as more truth-seeking than argument-seeking.
I came and asked “the expert concensus seems to be that AGI doom is unlikely. This is the best argument I am aware of and it doesn’t seem very strong. Are there any other arguments?”
Responses I have gotten are:
I don’t trust the experts, I trust my friends
You need to read the sequences
You should rephrase the argument in a way that I like
And 1 actual attempt at giving an answer (which unfortunately includes multiple assumptions I consider false or at least highly improbable)
If I seem contrarian, it’s because I believe that the truth is best uncovered by stating one’s beliefs and then critically examining the arguments. If you have arguments or disagree with me fine, but saying “you’re not allowed to think about this, you just have to trust me and my friends” is not a satisfying answer.
That’s your error. You should be aiming to let the important parts of reality imprint marks of themselves and their dynamics in your worldview.
Consensus might be best reached by stating one’s beliefs and then critically examining the arguments. But if you want to reach consensus, you also need to absorb other’s angles, e.g. their friends and the sequences and their framings and so on. (Assuming everyone trusts each other. In cases of distrust, stating one’s beliefs and critically examining arguments might simply deepen the distrust.)
If you think without contact with reality, your wrongness is just going to become more self-consistent.
Please! I’m begging you! Give me some of this contact with reality! What is the evidence you have seen and I have not? Where?
I don’t know, because you haven’t told me which of the forces that are present in my world-model are absent from your world-model. Without knowing what to add, I can’t give you a pointer.
Ok, then my answer is read the sequences.
“Can you explain in a few words why you believe what you believe”
“Please read this 500 pages of unrelated content before I will answer your question”
No.