advocating murder on the public internet is not just wrong but UTTERLY FUCKING STUPID.
This is not a sane representation of what has been said on this thread. I also note that taking an extreme position against preemptive strikes of any kind you are pitting yourself against the political strategy of most nations on earth and definitely the nation from which most posters originate.
For that matter I also expect state sanctioned military or paramilitary organisations to be the groups likely to carry out any necessary violence for the prevention of AGI apocalypse.
This thread started with a post talking about how we should ‘neutralize’ people who may, possibly, develop AI at some point in the future. You, specifically, replied to “Bad argument gets counterargument. Does not get bullet. Never. Never ever never for ever.” with “I approve of that sentiment so long as people don’t actually take it literally when the world is at stake.” Others have been saying “The competent resort to violence as soon as it beats the alternatives.”
What, exactly, would you call that if not advocating murder?
Does not get bullet. Never. Never ever never for ever.
Does it get systematic downvoting of 200 of my historic comments? Evidently—whether done by yourself or another. I’m glad I have enough karma to shrug it off but I do hope they stop soon. I have made a lot of comments over the last few years.
Edit: As a suggestion it may be better to scroll back half a dozen pages on the user page before starting a downvote protocol. I was just reading another recent thread I was active in (the social one) and some of the −1s were jarringly out of place. The kind that are never naturally downvoted.
You, specifically, replied to “Bad argument gets counterargument. Does not get bullet. Never. Never ever never for ever.” with “I approve of that sentiment so long as people don’t actually take it literally when the world is at stake.” Others have been saying “The competent resort to violence as soon as it beats the alternatives.” What, exactly, would you call that if not advocating murder?
Rejecting what is clearly an irrational quote from Eliezer independently of the local context. I believe I have rejected it previously and likely will again whenever anyone choses to quote it. Eliezer should know better than to make general statements that quite clearly do not hold.
Most statements don’t hold in some contexts. Particularly, if you’re advocating an implausible or subtly incorrect claim, it’s easy to find a statement that holds most of the time but not for the claim in question, thus lending it connotational support of the reference class where the statement holds.
Most statements don’t hold in some contexts. Particularly, if you’re advocating an implausible or subtly incorrect claim, it’s easy to find a statement that holds most of the time but not for the claim in question, thus lending it connotational support of the reference class where the statement holds.
I think I agree with what you are saying. As a side note statements that include “Never. Never ever never for ever” need to do better than to ‘hold in some contexts’. Because that is a lot of ‘never’.
This is not a sane representation of what has been said on this thread. I also note that taking an extreme position against preemptive strikes of any kind you are pitting yourself against the political strategy of most nations on earth and definitely the nation from which most posters originate.
For that matter I also expect state sanctioned military or paramilitary organisations to be the groups likely to carry out any necessary violence for the prevention of AGI apocalypse.
This thread started with a post talking about how we should ‘neutralize’ people who may, possibly, develop AI at some point in the future. You, specifically, replied to “Bad argument gets counterargument. Does not get bullet. Never. Never ever never for ever.” with “I approve of that sentiment so long as people don’t actually take it literally when the world is at stake.” Others have been saying “The competent resort to violence as soon as it beats the alternatives.” What, exactly, would you call that if not advocating murder?
Does it get systematic downvoting of 200 of my historic comments? Evidently—whether done by yourself or another. I’m glad I have enough karma to shrug it off but I do hope they stop soon. I have made a lot of comments over the last few years.
Edit: As a suggestion it may be better to scroll back half a dozen pages on the user page before starting a downvote protocol. I was just reading another recent thread I was active in (the social one) and some of the −1s were jarringly out of place. The kind that are never naturally downvoted.
Rejecting what is clearly an irrational quote from Eliezer independently of the local context. I believe I have rejected it previously and likely will again whenever anyone choses to quote it. Eliezer should know better than to make general statements that quite clearly do not hold.
Most statements don’t hold in some contexts. Particularly, if you’re advocating an implausible or subtly incorrect claim, it’s easy to find a statement that holds most of the time but not for the claim in question, thus lending it connotational support of the reference class where the statement holds.
I think I agree with what you are saying. As a side note statements that include “Never. Never ever never for ever” need to do better than to ‘hold in some contexts’. Because that is a lot of ‘never’.