Claim: Morality is fragile and not imperative (i.e. is not a natural law)
Status: Uncontroversial.
This sense of “uncontroversial” is not helpful if you are talking to people outside LW, and that’s your stated goal. This is a very much controversial question (as well as some others that you’ve termed this way). Convincing people to take AI risks seriously is hard, and anything less than LW sequences isn’t known to work anywhere as reliably, so it won’t be a small feat to create a short summary that does work, and claiming that many controversial claims are actually “uncontroversial” won’t help in this task.
This sense of “uncontroversial” is not helpful if you are talking to people outside LW, and that’s your stated goal.
It wasn’t my intention to tell people that the arguments are uncontroversial, that was meant to support the discussion here. But now that you mention it, I believe it could actually make people take a second look. “Wait, they say that argument is uncontroversial? Interesting! Where does that belief come from?”
This is a very much controversial question.
It was also not my intention that one should talk to religious nutters about this topic. And I don’t think it is controversial for anyone else. If humans can kill humans, machines can do so more effectively. That’s pretty much self-evident.
But now that you mention it, I believe it could actually make people take a second look. “Wait, they say that argument is uncontroversial? Interesting! Where does that belief come from?”
This is a very weak argument. I could as well imagine the other reply: “They say that conclusion is uncontroversial? But this statement is false, I know that many people dispute that statement. They must be presenting a sloppy and one-sided argument, I won’t waste my time reading further.”
This sense of “uncontroversial” is not helpful if you are talking to people outside LW, and that’s your stated goal. This is a very much controversial question (as well as some others that you’ve termed this way). Convincing people to take AI risks seriously is hard, and anything less than LW sequences isn’t known to work anywhere as reliably, so it won’t be a small feat to create a short summary that does work, and claiming that many controversial claims are actually “uncontroversial” won’t help in this task.
It wasn’t my intention to tell people that the arguments are uncontroversial, that was meant to support the discussion here. But now that you mention it, I believe it could actually make people take a second look. “Wait, they say that argument is uncontroversial? Interesting! Where does that belief come from?”
It was also not my intention that one should talk to religious nutters about this topic. And I don’t think it is controversial for anyone else. If humans can kill humans, machines can do so more effectively. That’s pretty much self-evident.
This is a very weak argument. I could as well imagine the other reply: “They say that conclusion is uncontroversial? But this statement is false, I know that many people dispute that statement. They must be presenting a sloppy and one-sided argument, I won’t waste my time reading further.”
Unfortunately, it is.