What I really believe is that there is not enough data to come to any definitive conclusion about the whole idea of a technological singularity and dangerous recursive self-improvement in particular and that it would be stupid to act on any conclusion that one could possible come up with at this point.
I agree with the “not enough data to come to any definitive conclusion” part, but think we could prepare for the Singularity by building an organization that is not attached to any particular plan but is ready to act when there is enough data to come to definitive conclusions (and tries to gather more data in the mean time). Do you agree with this, or do you think we should literally do nothing?
I believe that SI/lesswrong mainly produces science fiction and interesting, although practically completely useless, though-experiments.
I guess I have a higher opinion of SIAI than that. Just a few months ago you were saying:
I also fear that, at some point, I might need the money. Otherwise I would have already donated a lot more to the Singularity Institute years ago.
I also fear that, at some point, I might need the money. Otherwise I would have already donated a lot more to the Singularity Institute years ago.
What made you change your mind since then?
I did not change my mind. All I am saying is that I wouldn’t suggest anyone to contribute money to SI who fully believes what they believe. Because that would be counterproductive. If I accepted all of their ideas then I would make the same suggestion as you, to build “an organization that is not attached to any particular plan”.
But I do not share all of their beliefs. Particularly I do not currently believe that there is a strong case that uncontrollable recursive self-improvement is possible. And if it is possible I do not think that it is feasible. And even if it is feasible I believe that it won’t happen any time soon. And if it will happen soon I do not think that SI will have anything to do with it.
I believe that SI is an important organisation that deserves money. Although if I would share their idea of rationality and their technological optimism then the risks would outweigh the benefit.
Why I believe SI deserves money:
It makes people think by confronting them with the logical consequences of state of the art ideas from the field of rationality.
It explores topics and fringe theories that are neglected or worthy of consideration.
It challenges the conventional foundations of charitable giving, causing organisations like GiveWell to reassess and possibly improve their position.
It creates a lot of exciting and fun content and dicussions.
All in all I believe that SI will have a valuable influence. I believe that the world needs people and organisations that explore crazy ideas, that try to treat rare diseases in cute kittens and challenge conventional wisdom. And SI is such an organisation. Just like Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff. Just like all the creationists who caused evolutionary biologist to hone their arguments. SI will influence lots of fields and make people contemplate their beliefs.
To fully understand why my criticism of SI and willingness to donate does not contradict, you also have to realize that I do not accept the usual idea of charitable giving that is being voiced here. I think that the reasons for why people like me contribute money to charities and causes are complex and can’t be reduced to something as simple as wanting to do the most good. It is not just about wanting to do good, signaling or warm fuzzies. It is is all of it and much more. I also believe that it is piratically impossible to figure out how to maximize good deeds. And even if you were to do it for selfish reasons, you’d have to figure out what you want in the first place. An idea which is probably “not even wrong”.
I also fear that, at some point, I might need the money. Otherwise I would have already donated a lot more to the Singularity Institute years ago.
What made you change your mind since then?
Before you throw more of what I wrote in the past at me:
I sometimes take different positions just to explore an argument, because it is fun to discuss and because I am curious what reactions I might provoke.
I don’t have a firm opinion on many issues.
There are a lot of issues for which there are as many arguments that oppose a certain position as there are arguments that support it.
Most of what I write is not thought-out. I most often do not consciously contemplate what I write.
I find it very easy to argue for whatever position.
I don’t really care too much about most issues but write as if I do, to evoke feedback. I just do it for fun.
I am sometimes not completely honest to exploit the karma system. Although I don’t do that deliberately.
If I believe that SI/lesswrong could benefit from criticism I voice it if nobody else does.
The above is just some quick and dirty introspection that might hint at the reason for some seemingly contradictionary statements. The real reasons are much more complex of course, but I haven’t thought about that either :-)
I just don’t have the time right now to think hard about all the issues discussed here. I am still busy improving my education. At some point I will try to tackle the issues with due respect and in all seriousness.
Before you throw more of what I wrote in the past at me:
I have quoted everything XiXiDu said here so that it is not lost in any future edits.
Many of XiXis contributions consist of persuasive denunciations. As he points out in the parent (and quoted below), often these are based off little research, without much contemplation and are done to provoke reactions rather than because they are correct. Since XiXiDu is rather experienced at this mode of communication—and the arguments he uses have been able to be selected for persuasiveness through trial and error—there is a risk that he will be taken more seriously than is warranted.
The parent should be used to keep things in perspective when XiXiDu is rabble rousing.
I sometimes take different positions just to explore an argument, because it is fun to discuss and because I am curious what reactions I might provoke.
I don’t have a firm opinion on many issues.
There are a lot of issues for which there are as many arguments that oppose a certain position as there are arguments that support it.
Most of what I write is not thought-out. I most often do not consciously contemplate what I write.
I find it very easy to argue for whatever position.
I don’t really care too much about most issues but write as if I do, to evoke feedback. I just do it for fun.
I am sometimes not completely honest to exploit the karma system. Although I don’t do that deliberately.
If I believe that SI/lesswrong could benefit from criticism I voice it if nobody else does.
The above is just some quick and dirty introspection that might hint at the reason for some seemingly contradictionary statements. The real reasons are much more complex of course, but I haven’t thought about that either :-)
I just don’t have the time right now to think hard about all the issues discussed here. I am still busy improving my education. At some point I will try to tackle the issues with due respect and in all seriousness.
That said, I think his fear of culpability (for being potentially passively involved in an existential catastrophe) is very real. I suspect he is continually driven, at a level beneath what anyone’s remonstrations could easily affect, to try anything that might somehow succeed in removing all the culpability from him. This would be a double negative form of “something to protect”: “something to not be culpable for failure to protect”.
If this is true, then if you try to make him feel culpability for his communication acts as usual, this will only make his fear stronger and make him more desperate to find a way out, and make him even more willing to break normal conversational rules.
I don’t think he has full introspective access to his decision calculus for how he should let his drive affect his communication practices or the resulting level of discourse. So his above explanations for why he argues the way he does are probably partly confabulated, to match an underlying constraining intuition of “whatever I did, it was less indefensible than the alternative”.
(I feel like there has to be some kind of third alternative I’m missing here, that would derail the ongoing damage from this sort of desperate effort by him to compel someone or something to magically generate a way out for him. I think the underlying phenomenon is worth developing some insight into. Alex wouldn’t be the only person with some amount of this kind of psychology going on—just the most visible.)
If this is true, then if you try to make him feel culpability for his communication acts as usual, this will only make his fear stronger and make him more desperate to find a way out, and make him even more willing to break normal conversational rules.
I certainly wouldn’t try to make him feel culpability. Or, for that matter, “try to make him” anything at all. I don’t believe I have the ability to influence XiXi significantly and I don’t believe it would be useful to try (any more). It is for this reason that I rather explicitly spoke in the third person to any prospective future readers that it may be appropriate to refer here in the future. Pretending that I was actually talking to XiXiDu when I was clearly speaking to others is would just be insulting to him.
There are possible future cases (and plenty of past cases) where a reply to one of XiXiDu’s fallacious denunciations that consists of simply a link here is more useful than ignoring the comment entirely and hoping that the damage done is minimal.
What is your suggestion then? How do I get out? Delete all of my posts, comments and website like Roko?
Seriously, if it wasn’t for assholes like wedrifid I wouldn’t even bother anymore and just quit. The grandparent was an attempt at honesty, trying to leave. Then that guy comes along claiming that most of my submissions consisted of “persuasive denunciations”. Someone as him who does nothing else all the time. Someone who never argues for his case.
ETA Ah fuck it all. I’ll take another attempt and log out now and not get involved anymore. Happy self-adulation.
You’re suggesting that he might be making arguments that are taken more seriously than they warrant. Unless an argument is based on incorrect facts, it should be taken exactly as seriously as it warrants on its own merits. Why does the source matter?
Even if the audience is assumed to be perfect at evaluating evidence on it’s merits then the source matters to the extent that the authority of the author and the authority of the presentation are considered evidence. Knowing how pieces of evidence were selected also gives information, so knowing about the can provide significant information.
And the above assumption definitely doesn’t hold—people are not perfect at evaluating evidence on it’s merits. Considerations about how arguments optimized through trial error for persuasiveness become rather important when all recipients have known biases and you are actively trying to reduce the damage said biases cause.
Finally, considerations about how active provocation may have an undesirable influence on the community are qualitatively different from considerations about whether a denunciation is accurate. Just because I evaluate XiXiDu’s typical ‘arguments’ as terribly nonsensical thinking that does not mean I should be similarly dismissive of the potential damage that can be done by them, given the expressed intent and tactics. I can evaluate the threat that the quoted agenda has as significant even when I don’t personally take the output of that agenda seriously at all.
...without much contemplation and are done to provoke reactions rather than because they are correct.
Here is how I see it. I am just an uneducated below average IQ individual and don’t spend more time on my submissions than it takes to write them. If people are swayed by my ramblings then how firm could their beliefs possible be in the first place?
Many of XiXis contributions consist of persuasive denunciations. [...] there is a risk that he will be taken more seriously than is warranted.
I could have as easily argued in favor of SI. If I was to start now and put some extra effort into it I believe I could actually become more persuasiveness than SI itself. Do you believe that in a world where I did that you would tell people that my arguments are based on little research and that there is a risk that I am taken more seriously than is warranted?
For sure. XiXiDu uses grammar correctly! (Well, enough so that “become more persuasiveness” struck me as an editing error rather than typical.)
If someone uses grammar correctly it is an overwhelmingly strong indicator that either they are significantly educated (self or otherwise) or have enough intelligence to compensate!
I agree with the “not enough data to come to any definitive conclusion” part, but think we could prepare for the Singularity by building an organization that is not attached to any particular plan but is ready to act when there is enough data to come to definitive conclusions (and tries to gather more data in the mean time). Do you agree with this, or do you think we should literally do nothing?
I guess I have a higher opinion of SIAI than that. Just a few months ago you were saying:
What made you change your mind since then?
I did not change my mind. All I am saying is that I wouldn’t suggest anyone to contribute money to SI who fully believes what they believe. Because that would be counterproductive. If I accepted all of their ideas then I would make the same suggestion as you, to build “an organization that is not attached to any particular plan”.
But I do not share all of their beliefs. Particularly I do not currently believe that there is a strong case that uncontrollable recursive self-improvement is possible. And if it is possible I do not think that it is feasible. And even if it is feasible I believe that it won’t happen any time soon. And if it will happen soon I do not think that SI will have anything to do with it.
I believe that SI is an important organisation that deserves money. Although if I would share their idea of rationality and their technological optimism then the risks would outweigh the benefit.
Why I believe SI deserves money:
It makes people think by confronting them with the logical consequences of state of the art ideas from the field of rationality.
It explores topics and fringe theories that are neglected or worthy of consideration.
It challenges the conventional foundations of charitable giving, causing organisations like GiveWell to reassess and possibly improve their position.
It creates a lot of exciting and fun content and dicussions.
All in all I believe that SI will have a valuable influence. I believe that the world needs people and organisations that explore crazy ideas, that try to treat rare diseases in cute kittens and challenge conventional wisdom. And SI is such an organisation. Just like Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff. Just like all the creationists who caused evolutionary biologist to hone their arguments. SI will influence lots of fields and make people contemplate their beliefs.
To fully understand why my criticism of SI and willingness to donate does not contradict, you also have to realize that I do not accept the usual idea of charitable giving that is being voiced here. I think that the reasons for why people like me contribute money to charities and causes are complex and can’t be reduced to something as simple as wanting to do the most good. It is not just about wanting to do good, signaling or warm fuzzies. It is is all of it and much more. I also believe that it is piratically impossible to figure out how to maximize good deeds. And even if you were to do it for selfish reasons, you’d have to figure out what you want in the first place. An idea which is probably “not even wrong”.
Before you throw more of what I wrote in the past at me:
I sometimes take different positions just to explore an argument, because it is fun to discuss and because I am curious what reactions I might provoke.
I don’t have a firm opinion on many issues.
There are a lot of issues for which there are as many arguments that oppose a certain position as there are arguments that support it.
Most of what I write is not thought-out. I most often do not consciously contemplate what I write.
I find it very easy to argue for whatever position.
I don’t really care too much about most issues but write as if I do, to evoke feedback. I just do it for fun.
I am sometimes not completely honest to exploit the karma system. Although I don’t do that deliberately.
If I believe that SI/lesswrong could benefit from criticism I voice it if nobody else does.
The above is just some quick and dirty introspection that might hint at the reason for some seemingly contradictionary statements. The real reasons are much more complex of course, but I haven’t thought about that either :-)
I just don’t have the time right now to think hard about all the issues discussed here. I am still busy improving my education. At some point I will try to tackle the issues with due respect and in all seriousness.
I have quoted everything XiXiDu said here so that it is not lost in any future edits.
Many of XiXis contributions consist of persuasive denunciations. As he points out in the parent (and quoted below), often these are based off little research, without much contemplation and are done to provoke reactions rather than because they are correct. Since XiXiDu is rather experienced at this mode of communication—and the arguments he uses have been able to be selected for persuasiveness through trial and error—there is a risk that he will be taken more seriously than is warranted.
The parent should be used to keep things in perspective when XiXiDu is rabble rousing.
That said, I think his fear of culpability (for being potentially passively involved in an existential catastrophe) is very real. I suspect he is continually driven, at a level beneath what anyone’s remonstrations could easily affect, to try anything that might somehow succeed in removing all the culpability from him. This would be a double negative form of “something to protect”: “something to not be culpable for failure to protect”.
If this is true, then if you try to make him feel culpability for his communication acts as usual, this will only make his fear stronger and make him more desperate to find a way out, and make him even more willing to break normal conversational rules.
I don’t think he has full introspective access to his decision calculus for how he should let his drive affect his communication practices or the resulting level of discourse. So his above explanations for why he argues the way he does are probably partly confabulated, to match an underlying constraining intuition of “whatever I did, it was less indefensible than the alternative”.
(I feel like there has to be some kind of third alternative I’m missing here, that would derail the ongoing damage from this sort of desperate effort by him to compel someone or something to magically generate a way out for him. I think the underlying phenomenon is worth developing some insight into. Alex wouldn’t be the only person with some amount of this kind of psychology going on—just the most visible.)
I certainly wouldn’t try to make him feel culpability. Or, for that matter, “try to make him” anything at all. I don’t believe I have the ability to influence XiXi significantly and I don’t believe it would be useful to try (any more). It is for this reason that I rather explicitly spoke in the third person to any prospective future readers that it may be appropriate to refer here in the future. Pretending that I was actually talking to XiXiDu when I was clearly speaking to others is would just be insulting to him.
There are possible future cases (and plenty of past cases) where a reply to one of XiXiDu’s fallacious denunciations that consists of simply a link here is more useful than ignoring the comment entirely and hoping that the damage done is minimal.
Show me just one.
You could easily influence me with actual arguments.
What is your suggestion then? How do I get out? Delete all of my posts, comments and website like Roko?
Seriously, if it wasn’t for assholes like wedrifid I wouldn’t even bother anymore and just quit. The grandparent was an attempt at honesty, trying to leave. Then that guy comes along claiming that most of my submissions consisted of “persuasive denunciations”. Someone as him who does nothing else all the time. Someone who never argues for his case.
ETA Ah fuck it all. I’ll take another attempt and log out now and not get involved anymore. Happy self-adulation.
If a denunciation is accurate, does it really matter what the source is? Sometimes, putting pin to balloon is its own reward.
The rhetorical implication appears to be non-sequitur. Again. Please read more carefully.
You’re suggesting that he might be making arguments that are taken more seriously than they warrant. Unless an argument is based on incorrect facts, it should be taken exactly as seriously as it warrants on its own merits. Why does the source matter?
Even if the audience is assumed to be perfect at evaluating evidence on it’s merits then the source matters to the extent that the authority of the author and the authority of the presentation are considered evidence. Knowing how pieces of evidence were selected also gives information, so knowing about the can provide significant information.
And the above assumption definitely doesn’t hold—people are not perfect at evaluating evidence on it’s merits. Considerations about how arguments optimized through trial error for persuasiveness become rather important when all recipients have known biases and you are actively trying to reduce the damage said biases cause.
Finally, considerations about how active provocation may have an undesirable influence on the community are qualitatively different from considerations about whether a denunciation is accurate. Just because I evaluate XiXiDu’s typical ‘arguments’ as terribly nonsensical thinking that does not mean I should be similarly dismissive of the potential damage that can be done by them, given the expressed intent and tactics. I can evaluate the threat that the quoted agenda has as significant even when I don’t personally take the output of that agenda seriously at all.
You might want to save this as well.
Here is how I see it. I am just an uneducated below average IQ individual and don’t spend more time on my submissions than it takes to write them. If people are swayed by my ramblings then how firm could their beliefs possible be in the first place?
I could have as easily argued in favor of SI. If I was to start now and put some extra effort into it I believe I could actually become more persuasiveness than SI itself. Do you believe that in a world where I did that you would tell people that my arguments are based on little research and that there is a risk that I am taken more seriously than is warranted?
Don’t self-deprecate too much. Have you taken a (somewhat recent) IQ test, say an online matrix test or the Mensa one? (If so, personal prediction.)
Even though LW over-estimates its own IQ, don’t forget how stupid IQ 100 really is.
Don’t be ridiculous.
Yesterday I took an IQ test suggested by muflax and scored 78.
Yeah, I took it too and scored 37 - because my eyes were closed.
Do you really believe that you’re dumber than 90% of all people? (~ IQ of 78; I suppose the SD was 15)
Seriously, do you know just how stupid most humans are?
I deny the data.
For sure. XiXiDu uses grammar correctly! (Well, enough so that “become more persuasiveness” struck me as an editing error rather than typical.)
If someone uses grammar correctly it is an overwhelmingly strong indicator that either they are significantly educated (self or otherwise) or have enough intelligence to compensate!
Given all these facts, it’s pretty hard to take what you say seriously...