More generally I do sometimes worry that attack vectors which seem obvious and dangerous to me simply haven’t been though of by deeply unimaginative malicious people and so feel vaguely worried about even mentioning them as a negative possibility if I can’t find people already proposing them with google.
Eh, that’s not really what I’m worried about. It just seems to me that there can be very little good outcome of (say) posting “crazy ideas” here about how to recreate slavery or whatever. Not because it’ll make LW look bad, or because there’s a significant chance of it coming about … but because people shouldn’t practice at creating social ills, since you get better at what you practice.
Post “crazy ideas” about how to accomplish good ends, sure. But “crazy ideas” for creating conditions that nobody would want their son or daughter to live in? Why bother? History is bad enough.
(This is intended to be a politically neutral argument, applicable equally given progressive or conservative premises.)
I tried to play devil’s advocate and say—if we can imagine creative bad things, there is a chance that sooner or later someone else will imagine them, too; but if we think about the idea first, we can find a defense. Something like inoculation.
But the problem is: we are usually not thinking about the defense, only posting bad ideas. And even if we would post a hint at solution, if a few years later someone takes the idea seriously, people will probably already forget that the solution was posted here. Also, using the same argument, if we can find a quick solution now, most likely other people will be able to find it later if it will be necessary. Yet another problem is that attack is usually more simple than defense, so contributing equally to both sides creates a negative outcome.
I’m not so sure. There is some value in trying to guess at the limits of the behavior open to the least moral, most hostile and least cooperative individual.
I wouldn’t buy children, force them to work half-starved in an open pit diamond mine at gunpoint but in the real world there are people who actually do that and countries that are hellish pits of civil war because that’s an economically viable option open to someone sufficiently unconcerned by human suffering.
Just as it can be hard to guess how horrible the solution found by a non-human process can be it can be hard to guess just how horrible the options genuinely amoral humans may choose can be if you never practice even thinking about the most horrible options open to someone willing to take them.
I wouldn’t engineer a deadly virus, release nerve gas on the subway, [ADDITIONAL OPTIONS REDACTED] or put carcinogens in the water supply but if I’m trying to think of options open to a hypothetical Worst Person In The World who’s aims might be served by such I don’t think it’s a good idea to just say “I refuse to think of such things because it might make me better at thinking of them”.
But as I said, I often fail to realize how thick and unimaginative many malicious people can be. There’s far more skinheads who’s first thought is going out and glassing someone than geeks who’ll actually think about it and making it easier for the skinhead to just google ideas likely isn’t a good idea.
My impression is that the profile is more along the lines of “highly political” + “somewhat thick”. The world has too many cities that are failing to be smoking craters for it to be otherwise. And I’m not terribly interested in politics.
I hope the CIA spend more time tracking people who actually have contact with terrorist organizations, and less time tracking people who are idly curious about how to blow things up and set them on fire … if only for the future of the Boy Scouts.
More generally I do sometimes worry that attack vectors which seem obvious and dangerous to me simply haven’t been though of by deeply unimaginative malicious people and so feel vaguely worried about even mentioning them as a negative possibility if I can’t find people already proposing them with google.
Eh, that’s not really what I’m worried about. It just seems to me that there can be very little good outcome of (say) posting “crazy ideas” here about how to recreate slavery or whatever. Not because it’ll make LW look bad, or because there’s a significant chance of it coming about … but because people shouldn’t practice at creating social ills, since you get better at what you practice.
Post “crazy ideas” about how to accomplish good ends, sure. But “crazy ideas” for creating conditions that nobody would want their son or daughter to live in? Why bother? History is bad enough.
(This is intended to be a politically neutral argument, applicable equally given progressive or conservative premises.)
I tried to play devil’s advocate and say—if we can imagine creative bad things, there is a chance that sooner or later someone else will imagine them, too; but if we think about the idea first, we can find a defense. Something like inoculation.
But the problem is: we are usually not thinking about the defense, only posting bad ideas. And even if we would post a hint at solution, if a few years later someone takes the idea seriously, people will probably already forget that the solution was posted here. Also, using the same argument, if we can find a quick solution now, most likely other people will be able to find it later if it will be necessary. Yet another problem is that attack is usually more simple than defense, so contributing equally to both sides creates a negative outcome.
I’m not so sure. There is some value in trying to guess at the limits of the behavior open to the least moral, most hostile and least cooperative individual.
I wouldn’t buy children, force them to work half-starved in an open pit diamond mine at gunpoint but in the real world there are people who actually do that and countries that are hellish pits of civil war because that’s an economically viable option open to someone sufficiently unconcerned by human suffering.
Just as it can be hard to guess how horrible the solution found by a non-human process can be it can be hard to guess just how horrible the options genuinely amoral humans may choose can be if you never practice even thinking about the most horrible options open to someone willing to take them.
I wouldn’t engineer a deadly virus, release nerve gas on the subway, [ADDITIONAL OPTIONS REDACTED] or put carcinogens in the water supply but if I’m trying to think of options open to a hypothetical Worst Person In The World who’s aims might be served by such I don’t think it’s a good idea to just say “I refuse to think of such things because it might make me better at thinking of them”.
But as I said, I often fail to realize how thick and unimaginative many malicious people can be. There’s far more skinheads who’s first thought is going out and glassing someone than geeks who’ll actually think about it and making it easier for the skinhead to just google ideas likely isn’t a good idea.
By the same token, it is good for us to practice arguing against social ills.
Of course, we can do that anywhere on the internet. But this way we get community support :-)
Speaking of crazy ideas.… sitting around Googling methods of terrorism may not be the best way to stay of the CIA’s watch-list.
My impression is that the profile is more along the lines of “highly political” + “somewhat thick”. The world has too many cities that are failing to be smoking craters for it to be otherwise. And I’m not terribly interested in politics.
I hope the CIA spend more time tracking people who actually have contact with terrorist organizations, and less time tracking people who are idly curious about how to blow things up and set them on fire … if only for the future of the Boy Scouts.