Thanks for your effort. However, I agree with Ciphergoth that this particular tactic is likely to result in a loss of reputation in those circles that may actually impact x-risks—as a result, I think that it will indirectly increase net x-risk. I feel somewhat awkward advising against this because you’ve already made a public effort towards organizing it, but I am pretty sure that it will have a negative impact.
Consider that one of the odd quirks of human psychology is that people often consider the primary argument made in favor of a proposition to be the best argument for that proposition—namely, they often assume that you’ve made the best argument that you can. However, this setting will not enable you to make a very good argument at all—you can’t overcome very large gaps of inferential distance with 3-4 words on a sign. Even people who might otherwise be receptive to the importance of x-risks will remember “we saw some people waving signs around on the street about that a few days ago”—they’ll be less receptive than they would have been otherwise to more rigorous arguments because you’ve placed yourself in the same reference class as people with much-less-defensible positions.
I appreciate the effort that you’ve put into this—the whole “get people working together to achieve something” is arguably something that we could substantially improve at as a community. However, this is a case where some well-intended actions will have a negative impact compared to no action at all. (Keep in mind, though, that “no action at all” isn’t the relevant counterfactual—what else could you do with the time to generate fuzzies and/or utilons?)
What does LW think of the idea of standing on the street with a sign that says “Talk to me if you like thought experiments” and trying to develop the skill of quickly overcoming inferential gaps with passerby, with a view to improving entry-level explanations of concepts like x-risk in general? If this guy can become a millionaire selling vegetable peelers, it seems like one might be able to develop a street pitch for effective altruism good enough that if one spends 8 hours standing in a public place in a high-IQ city pitching people, one creates one additional effective altruist on expectation.
Think of who else does street work like this, and the signals it may give to your target audience. I would worry that such an approach would be mistaken for Scientology street recruiting (compare it to “Discover your true potential” and other such come-ons for their introductory “personality test”), or similar street work by some other religious group, and might be avoided by exactly those people you might wish to reach.
In the evangelical days of my youth, this sort of thing is exactly what we were encouraged to do: get strangers talking about a “deep” subject that provided a natural transition to just how bleak things are without god, the fulfillment of salvation, and so on and so forth.
Why would we do anything on the streets? Compared to a variety of online means, they’re an incredibly inefficient way to reach the people most likely to be receptive to anything we want to talk about.
Hm. People seem to take ideas more seriously if they’re presented by flesh-and-blood people, and you get quicker feedback loops. Also potentially serves the additional purposes of improving social skills and finding one friends and romantic partners. What do you think the most effective online means are?
Consider that one of the odd quirks of human psychology is that people often consider the primary argument made in favor of a proposition to be the best argument for that proposition—namely, they often assume that you’ve made the best argument that you can.
While that’s true pushing the Overton window can also be useful. It’s difficult to say what actions do.
But that’s not only what the window is about. Serious people are generally not seen as worrying about those things and a lot of people don’t know that there are people who worry about UFAI.
Any important topic has street actions, Greenpeace, PETA, you name it. If you don’t have street actions it means that no body is interested in the problem.
A lot of people went to streets to protest against nuclear weapons which were considered existential risks, and it resulted in nuclear disarmament in 1980.
What makes you think that the street actions caused the arms reduction treaties?
Any important topic has street actions, Greenpeace, PETA, you name it. If you don’t have street actions it means that no body is interested in the problem.
Alternatively, it means that people are getting on with solving the problem. For example, there are no (few?) street actions to protest the fact that it’s hard to communicate over long-distances. This is not because people don’t care, it’s because they realise that street actions won’t change things, and instead they invent email, and VoIP, and Skype, and so on. Street actions are a reflection of powerlessness, of a lack of better ideas.
So do you think that any protest against nuclear war or war in Vietnam were completely useless, because nobody knows what was exact causation? I do not claim that antinuclear protest was the only cause of nuclear disarmament but I think that it was one of several parallel causes and no we now, neither people at this time could find the proportion. But is some cases street protests are effective. Greenpeace did most of its job by street protest.
Also your example with creating Skype is not correct. Preventing human extinction is not equal to creating one concrete thing (or may be Friendly AI?). For example someone could not prevent war in Vietnam by creating any possible concrete invention. He had to influence government and wide masses of people.
If you are going to be killed you have right to protest against it.
Also you said that street action is reflection of powerlessness. But lack of street actions is also reflect the fact that nobody is interested in the topic.
Thanks for your effort. However, I agree with Ciphergoth that this particular tactic is likely to result in a loss of reputation in those circles that may actually impact x-risks—as a result, I think that it will indirectly increase net x-risk. I feel somewhat awkward advising against this because you’ve already made a public effort towards organizing it, but I am pretty sure that it will have a negative impact.
Consider that one of the odd quirks of human psychology is that people often consider the primary argument made in favor of a proposition to be the best argument for that proposition—namely, they often assume that you’ve made the best argument that you can. However, this setting will not enable you to make a very good argument at all—you can’t overcome very large gaps of inferential distance with 3-4 words on a sign. Even people who might otherwise be receptive to the importance of x-risks will remember “we saw some people waving signs around on the street about that a few days ago”—they’ll be less receptive than they would have been otherwise to more rigorous arguments because you’ve placed yourself in the same reference class as people with much-less-defensible positions.
I appreciate the effort that you’ve put into this—the whole “get people working together to achieve something” is arguably something that we could substantially improve at as a community. However, this is a case where some well-intended actions will have a negative impact compared to no action at all. (Keep in mind, though, that “no action at all” isn’t the relevant counterfactual—what else could you do with the time to generate fuzzies and/or utilons?)
What does LW think of the idea of standing on the street with a sign that says “Talk to me if you like thought experiments” and trying to develop the skill of quickly overcoming inferential gaps with passerby, with a view to improving entry-level explanations of concepts like x-risk in general? If this guy can become a millionaire selling vegetable peelers, it seems like one might be able to develop a street pitch for effective altruism good enough that if one spends 8 hours standing in a public place in a high-IQ city pitching people, one creates one additional effective altruist on expectation.
Think of who else does street work like this, and the signals it may give to your target audience. I would worry that such an approach would be mistaken for Scientology street recruiting (compare it to “Discover your true potential” and other such come-ons for their introductory “personality test”), or similar street work by some other religious group, and might be avoided by exactly those people you might wish to reach.
In the evangelical days of my youth, this sort of thing is exactly what we were encouraged to do: get strangers talking about a “deep” subject that provided a natural transition to just how bleak things are without god, the fulfillment of salvation, and so on and so forth.
Why would we do anything on the streets? Compared to a variety of online means, they’re an incredibly inefficient way to reach the people most likely to be receptive to anything we want to talk about.
Hm. People seem to take ideas more seriously if they’re presented by flesh-and-blood people, and you get quicker feedback loops. Also potentially serves the additional purposes of improving social skills and finding one friends and romantic partners. What do you think the most effective online means are?
It would be an improvement over turchin’s plan of framing this as a protest.
While that’s true pushing the Overton window can also be useful. It’s difficult to say what actions do.
Well, is the protest saying anything that isn’t already within the Overton window?
The fact that there real people who worry about having friendly AI and other Xrisk concerns isn’t well within the window.
I don’t think anyone would call you an extremist for worrying about these things.
But that’s not only what the window is about. Serious people are generally not seen as worrying about those things and a lot of people don’t know that there are people who worry about UFAI.
A lot of people went to streets to protest against nuclear weapons which were considered existential risks, and it resulted in nuclear disarmament in 1980. See photo here: http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/hbomb/page_18.shtml
Any important topic has street actions, Greenpeace, PETA, you name it. If you don’t have street actions it means that no body is interested in the problem.
What makes you think that the street actions caused the arms reduction treaties?
Alternatively, it means that people are getting on with solving the problem. For example, there are no (few?) street actions to protest the fact that it’s hard to communicate over long-distances. This is not because people don’t care, it’s because they realise that street actions won’t change things, and instead they invent email, and VoIP, and Skype, and so on. Street actions are a reflection of powerlessness, of a lack of better ideas.
So do you think that any protest against nuclear war or war in Vietnam were completely useless, because nobody knows what was exact causation?
I do not claim that antinuclear protest was the only cause of nuclear disarmament but I think that it was one of several parallel causes and no we now, neither people at this time could find the proportion. But is some cases street protests are effective. Greenpeace did most of its job by street protest.
Also your example with creating Skype is not correct. Preventing human extinction is not equal to creating one concrete thing (or may be Friendly AI?). For example someone could not prevent war in Vietnam by creating any possible concrete invention. He had to influence government and wide masses of people.
If you are going to be killed you have right to protest against it. Also you said that street action is reflection of powerlessness. But lack of street actions is also reflect the fact that nobody is interested in the topic.