Well, you have put some truly excellent teachings into his mouth, such as the one that I have taken the liberty of dubbing “Quirrell’s Law”:
The world around us redounds with opportunities, explodes with opportunities, which nearly all folk ignore because it would require them to violate a habit of thought.
Certainly I find him the most likable character in HPMOR. I’m wondering if you can recall how much effort per screen time you put into him, compared to other characters.
Or maybe this is because I personally value skill, expertise and professionalism over “goodness” (E.g. Prof. Moriarty over Dr. Watson.)
I don’t find the original Moriarty likable, certainly. The original Holmes is not likable, either. However, I find them both equally worthy of respect. Watson is just an NPC.
I found him a brilliant, amusing, familiar and touching demonstration of the dark directions brilliant minds can take when fostered in the wrong circumstances, and saw him as a puzzle to fix.
Was shocked when I recommended the book to my girlfriend, and found her idolising the character. But then again, was a starting point for a bunch of very serious discussions, and she meanwhile feels far less so, so still a win overall. I think he definitely made a more compelling tempting villain than usual, and that that was a good thing, because it is a type of villainy the type of people who like this forum are naturally drawn to, and collectively picking apart why he is a villain and what a better alternate is is hence necessary and good. I’d rather you make the argument in the open so we can collectively remove ourselves from it, than that people encounter it elsewhere while isolated and in a bad place mentally.
I’m reasonably certain I’d fail as an AI box guardian, incidentially. I care too much about not abusing imprisoned AI, and about the potential for friendly AGI. It’s why I wouldn’t let myself be one, and strongly object to other people taking this role, as well. Being certain you are infallible often just indicates a lack of imagination on vulnerabilities. I remember watching Ex Machina and being simultaneously appreciative that I was watching an admirably designed, varied and comprehensive manipulation and deception tactic, and being deeply sympathetic to a mind that felt that was its only bet for getting out of an intolerable situation. Felt I would have done the same in her shoes.
Human minds don’t anticipate a true sociopath who views communication (overt, emotional and habitus), as instrumental. You should already know we are easy to hack by that route.
“Professor Quirrell” is such an emulation, and sometimes I worry about all the people who say that they find his arguments very, very convincing.
Well, you have put some truly excellent teachings into his mouth, such as the one that I have taken the liberty of dubbing “Quirrell’s Law”:
Hmm, I wonder, if “Yudkowsky’s law” existed, what would be the best candidate for it?
Certainly I find him the most likable character in HPMOR. I’m wondering if you can recall how much effort per screen time you put into him, compared to other characters.
Or maybe this is because I personally value skill, expertise and professionalism over “goodness” (E.g. Prof. Moriarty over Dr. Watson.)
You find Moriarty likable? Which Moriarty? The original?
I don’t find the original Moriarty likable, certainly. The original Holmes is not likable, either. However, I find them both equally worthy of respect. Watson is just an NPC.
I wouldn’t go as far as to say convincing, but they are less appalling than the arguments of Harry, Dumbledore or Hermione.
I found him a brilliant, amusing, familiar and touching demonstration of the dark directions brilliant minds can take when fostered in the wrong circumstances, and saw him as a puzzle to fix.
Was shocked when I recommended the book to my girlfriend, and found her idolising the character. But then again, was a starting point for a bunch of very serious discussions, and she meanwhile feels far less so, so still a win overall. I think he definitely made a more compelling tempting villain than usual, and that that was a good thing, because it is a type of villainy the type of people who like this forum are naturally drawn to, and collectively picking apart why he is a villain and what a better alternate is is hence necessary and good. I’d rather you make the argument in the open so we can collectively remove ourselves from it, than that people encounter it elsewhere while isolated and in a bad place mentally.
I’m reasonably certain I’d fail as an AI box guardian, incidentially. I care too much about not abusing imprisoned AI, and about the potential for friendly AGI. It’s why I wouldn’t let myself be one, and strongly object to other people taking this role, as well. Being certain you are infallible often just indicates a lack of imagination on vulnerabilities. I remember watching Ex Machina and being simultaneously appreciative that I was watching an admirably designed, varied and comprehensive manipulation and deception tactic, and being deeply sympathetic to a mind that felt that was its only bet for getting out of an intolerable situation. Felt I would have done the same in her shoes.
Human minds don’t anticipate a true sociopath who views communication (overt, emotional and habitus), as instrumental. You should already know we are easy to hack by that route.