If you “get it” and you care about this risk, I urge you to do the same thing. Post about this on Facebook, on Twitter, on other forums—wherever you have the ability to get a group of people to think about this. The couple of minutes it takes to tell 20 people now could mean that hundreds of people find out sooner. If any of you decide to spread the word, comment. I’d like to know.
I perceive plenty of risks regarding future military technology that are likely to result in the loss of life and liberty. People with power no longer requiring the approval (or insufficient disapproval) of other human participants to maintain their power is among the dangers. Increased ease of creating extremely destructive weapons (including killer robots) without large scale enterprise (eg. with 3D printers you mentioned) is another.
This issue is not one I expect to have any influence over. This is a high stakes game. A national security issue and an individual ‘right to bear arms’ issue rolled into one. It is also the kind of of game where belief in doomsday predictions is enough to make people (or even a cause) lose credibility. To whatever extent my actions could have an influence at all I have no particular confidence that it would be in a desirable direction.
Evangelism is not my thing. Even if it was, this wouldn’t be the cause I chose to champion.
This issue is not one I expect to have any influence over.
I don’t expect to have a large influence over it, but for a small investment, I make a small difference. You said once yourself that if your life could make even a miniscule difference to the probability that humanity survives, it would be worth it. And if a 1⁄4,204,800 sized fraction of my life makes a 0.000000001% difference in the chance that humanity doesn’t lose democracy, that’s worth it to me. Looking at it that way, does my behavior make sense?
It is also the kind of of game where belief in doomsday predictions is enough to make people (or even a cause) lose credibility.
Ok. I feel like you should be saying that to yourself—you’re the one who said you thought the 3-D printer idea would result in everyone dying. I think the worst thing I said is that killer robots are a threat to democracy. Did you find something in my writing that you pattern matched to “doomsday prediction”? If so, I will need an example.
Evangelism is not my thing. Even if it was, this wouldn’t be the cause I chose to champion.
Spending 1⁄4,204,800 of my life to spread the word about something is best categorized as “doing my part” not “championing a cause”. Like I said in my last comment:
“I have no intentions of dedicating my life to this issue.”
After considering the amount of time I spent on this and the clear statement of my intentions (or lack of intentions), do you agree that I was never trying to champion this cause and was simply doing my part, wedrifid?
Looking at it that way, does my behavior make sense?
I suggested that Eliezer’s analysis of economic growth and FAI is more relevant to Eliezer (in terms of his expertise, influence and comparative advantage) than military robot politics is to all of us (on each of the same metrics). To resolve the ambiguity there, I do not take the position that talk of robot killers is completely worthless. Instead I take the position that Eliezer spending a day or so analysing economic growth impacts on his life’s work is entirely sensible. So instead of criticising your behavior I am criticising your criticism of another behaviour that is somewhat similar.
Ok. I feel like you should be saying that to yourself—you’re the one who said you thought the 3-D printer idea would result in everyone dying.
I perceive a difference between the social consequences of replying with a criticism of a “right to bear automated-killer-robot arms” proposal in a comment and the social consequences of spreading the word to people I know (on facebook, etc.) about some issue of choice.
I think the worst thing I said is that killer robots are a threat to democracy.
Yes. My use of ‘doomsday’ to describe that scenario is lax. Please imagine that I found a more precise term and expressed approximately the same point.
After considering the amount of time I spent on this and the clear statement of my intentions (or lack of intentions), do you agree that I was never trying to champion this cause and was simply doing my part, wedrifid?
Please note that the quote that mentions ‘championing a cause’ was explicitly about myself. It was not made as a criticism of your behavior. It was made as a direct, quote denoted reply to your call for readers (made in response to myself) to evangelise to people we know on ‘facebook, twitter and other forums’. I was explaining why I do not choose to do as you request even though by my judgement I do, in fact, “get it”.
Taking a stance and expressing concern about something that isn’t a mainstream issue comes with a cost. Someone who is mainstream in all ways but one tends to be more influential when it comes to that one issue than someone who has eccentric beliefs in all areas.
So instead of criticising your behavior I am criticising your criticism of another behaviour that is somewhat similar.
Oh okay.
I perceive a difference between the social consequences of replying …
I see. I thought you were making some different comparison.
Yes. My use of ‘doomsday’ to describe that scenario is lax. Please imagine that I found a more precise term and expressed approximately the same point.
Okay. (:
Please note that the quote that mentions ‘championing a cause’ was explicitly about myself.
Okay, noted.
I was explaining why I do not choose to do as you request even though by my judgement I do, in fact, “get it”.
I’m glad that you get it enough to see the potential benefit of spreading the word even though you choose not to because you anticipate unwanted social consequences instead.
Taking a stance and expressing concern about something that isn’t a mainstream issue comes with a cost. Someone who is mainstream in all ways but one tends to be more influential when it comes to that one issue than someone who has eccentric beliefs in all areas.
Hahaha! Yeah, I can see that. Though this really depends on who your friends are or which friend group one chose to spread the idea to.
At this stage, it is probably best to spread the word only to those who Seth Godin calls “early adopters” (defined as: people who want to know everything about their subject of interest aka nerds).
This would be why I told LessWrong as opposed to some other group.
I perceive plenty of risks regarding future military technology that are likely to result in the loss of life and liberty. People with power no longer requiring the approval (or insufficient disapproval) of other human participants to maintain their power is among the dangers. Increased ease of creating extremely destructive weapons (including killer robots) without large scale enterprise (eg. with 3D printers you mentioned) is another.
This issue is not one I expect to have any influence over. This is a high stakes game. A national security issue and an individual ‘right to bear arms’ issue rolled into one. It is also the kind of of game where belief in doomsday predictions is enough to make people (or even a cause) lose credibility. To whatever extent my actions could have an influence at all I have no particular confidence that it would be in a desirable direction.
Evangelism is not my thing. Even if it was, this wouldn’t be the cause I chose to champion.
I don’t expect to have a large influence over it, but for a small investment, I make a small difference. You said once yourself that if your life could make even a miniscule difference to the probability that humanity survives, it would be worth it. And if a 1⁄4,204,800 sized fraction of my life makes a 0.000000001% difference in the chance that humanity doesn’t lose democracy, that’s worth it to me. Looking at it that way, does my behavior make sense?
Ok. I feel like you should be saying that to yourself—you’re the one who said you thought the 3-D printer idea would result in everyone dying. I think the worst thing I said is that killer robots are a threat to democracy. Did you find something in my writing that you pattern matched to “doomsday prediction”? If so, I will need an example.
Spending 1⁄4,204,800 of my life to spread the word about something is best categorized as “doing my part” not “championing a cause”. Like I said in my last comment:
“I have no intentions of dedicating my life to this issue.”
After considering the amount of time I spent on this and the clear statement of my intentions (or lack of intentions), do you agree that I was never trying to champion this cause and was simply doing my part, wedrifid?
I suggested that Eliezer’s analysis of economic growth and FAI is more relevant to Eliezer (in terms of his expertise, influence and comparative advantage) than military robot politics is to all of us (on each of the same metrics). To resolve the ambiguity there, I do not take the position that talk of robot killers is completely worthless. Instead I take the position that Eliezer spending a day or so analysing economic growth impacts on his life’s work is entirely sensible. So instead of criticising your behavior I am criticising your criticism of another behaviour that is somewhat similar.
I perceive a difference between the social consequences of replying with a criticism of a “right to bear automated-killer-robot arms” proposal in a comment and the social consequences of spreading the word to people I know (on facebook, etc.) about some issue of choice.
Yes. My use of ‘doomsday’ to describe that scenario is lax. Please imagine that I found a more precise term and expressed approximately the same point.
Please note that the quote that mentions ‘championing a cause’ was explicitly about myself. It was not made as a criticism of your behavior. It was made as a direct, quote denoted reply to your call for readers (made in response to myself) to evangelise to people we know on ‘facebook, twitter and other forums’. I was explaining why I do not choose to do as you request even though by my judgement I do, in fact, “get it”.
Taking a stance and expressing concern about something that isn’t a mainstream issue comes with a cost. Someone who is mainstream in all ways but one tends to be more influential when it comes to that one issue than someone who has eccentric beliefs in all areas.
Oh okay.
I see. I thought you were making some different comparison.
Okay. (:
Okay, noted.
I’m glad that you get it enough to see the potential benefit of spreading the word even though you choose not to because you anticipate unwanted social consequences instead.
Hahaha! Yeah, I can see that. Though this really depends on who your friends are or which friend group one chose to spread the idea to.
At this stage, it is probably best to spread the word only to those who Seth Godin calls “early adopters” (defined as: people who want to know everything about their subject of interest aka nerds).
This would be why I told LessWrong as opposed to some other group.