The latest New Yorker has a lengthy article about Nick Bostrom and Superintelligence. It contains a good profile of Bostrom going back to his graduate school days, his interest in existential threats in general, and how that interest became more focused on the risk of AGI specifically. Many concepts frequently discussed at LW are mentioned, e.g. the Fermi paradox and the Great Filter, the concept of an intelligence explosion, uploading, cryonics, etc. Also discussed is the progress that Bostrom and others have made in getting the word out regarding the threat posed by AGI, as well as some opposing viewpoints. Various other AI researchers, entrepreneurs and pundits are mentioned as well (although neither EY nor LW is mentioned, unfortunately).
The article is aimed at a general audience and so it doesn’t contain much that will be new to the typical LWer, but it is an interesting and well-done overview, IMO.
I understood the comment differently: The OP did write the post because the purpose of the Times article was spot on—not because the ‘right’ people got the credit.
I did not mean to suggest that anyone had been slighted or denied any due credit when I stated that neither EY nor LW was mentioned. As I read the article, I had just been looking for mentions of EY or LW, and I figured that others might as well, so that is why I mentioned it.
No article can cover everything. As Gunnar stated, I thought it was a great article!
I was surprised to see how health-conscious Bostrom is. Making his own foods in order to maximize health and not shaking hands. I thought that was limited to Kurzweil only.
“Bostrom had little interest in the cocktail party. He shook a few hands, then headed for St. James’s Park, a public garden that extends from the gates of Buckingham Palace through central London. ”—Article
And yet “His intensity is too untidily contained, evident in his harried gait on the streets outside his office (he does not drive), in his voracious consumption of audiobooks (played at two or three times the normal speed, to maximize efficiency), and his fastidious guarding against illnesses (he avoids handshakes and wipes down silverware beneath a tablecloth).”
If he is a rationalist, I would expect that he has a good grasp of when it is socially pragmatic to shake hands, and when he can operate under Crocker’s rules and request not to shake hands. I also expect that he is smart enough to have an antibacterial wipe in his pocket to use after shaking hands (but not use it until he is out of sight in the gardens).
What do Crocker’s rules have to do with this?
Also, it seems carrying antibacterial wipe to use after shaking hands is excessive. The chance that he’ll suffer serious health problems from infection by handshake is so small that I doubt even the time taken for all these efforts is worth it.
You quoted him saying he did not shake hands, that to a lot of us seems a bit excessive. Tem42 tells us that it is more plausible to carry antibacterial wipe for hygiene concerns as opposed to a blanket bank on shaking hands, which to us, is rather strange.
If the cost/benefit is vs . It seems like the latter is more plausible, especially cause the article also said he shook hands and left.
I think the most plausible is that he does shake hands and he does not use anti-bacterial wipe, merely that he mentioned to the reporter “I prefer not to shake hands to keep myself safe” and that the reporter exaggerated.
The latest New Yorker has a lengthy article about Nick Bostrom and Superintelligence. It contains a good profile of Bostrom going back to his graduate school days, his interest in existential threats in general, and how that interest became more focused on the risk of AGI specifically. Many concepts frequently discussed at LW are mentioned, e.g. the Fermi paradox and the Great Filter, the concept of an intelligence explosion, uploading, cryonics, etc. Also discussed is the progress that Bostrom and others have made in getting the word out regarding the threat posed by AGI, as well as some opposing viewpoints. Various other AI researchers, entrepreneurs and pundits are mentioned as well (although neither EY nor LW is mentioned, unfortunately).
The article is aimed at a general audience and so it doesn’t contain much that will be new to the typical LWer, but it is an interesting and well-done overview, IMO.
I was amused to see both modafinil and nicotine pop up. I guess I should feel proud?
You should. Just started playing with those gums.
“There’s no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don’t care who gets the credit.”
I don’t think that’s the right explanation in this case.
I understood the comment differently: The OP did write the post because the purpose of the Times article was spot on—not because the ‘right’ people got the credit.
I did not mean to suggest that anyone had been slighted or denied any due credit when I stated that neither EY nor LW was mentioned. As I read the article, I had just been looking for mentions of EY or LW, and I figured that others might as well, so that is why I mentioned it.
No article can cover everything. As Gunnar stated, I thought it was a great article!
I was surprised to see how health-conscious Bostrom is. Making his own foods in order to maximize health and not shaking hands. I thought that was limited to Kurzweil only.
“Bostrom had little interest in the cocktail party. He shook a few hands, then headed for St. James’s Park, a public garden that extends from the gates of Buckingham Palace through central London. ”—Article
And yet “His intensity is too untidily contained, evident in his harried gait on the streets outside his office (he does not drive), in his voracious consumption of audiobooks (played at two or three times the normal speed, to maximize efficiency), and his fastidious guarding against illnesses (he avoids handshakes and wipes down silverware beneath a tablecloth).”
If he is a rationalist, I would expect that he has a good grasp of when it is socially pragmatic to shake hands, and when he can operate under Crocker’s rules and request not to shake hands. I also expect that he is smart enough to have an antibacterial wipe in his pocket to use after shaking hands (but not use it until he is out of sight in the gardens).
What do Crocker’s rules have to do with this? Also, it seems carrying antibacterial wipe to use after shaking hands is excessive. The chance that he’ll suffer serious health problems from infection by handshake is so small that I doubt even the time taken for all these efforts is worth it.
You quoted him saying he did not shake hands, that to a lot of us seems a bit excessive. Tem42 tells us that it is more plausible to carry antibacterial wipe for hygiene concerns as opposed to a blanket bank on shaking hands, which to us, is rather strange.
If the cost/benefit is vs . It seems like the latter is more plausible, especially cause the article also said he shook hands and left.
I think the most plausible is that he does shake hands and he does not use anti-bacterial wipe, merely that he mentioned to the reporter “I prefer not to shake hands to keep myself safe” and that the reporter exaggerated.