I’d further add—they appropriate the language of anti-appropriation, but are not themselves skilled at recognizing the seeking of equity in social systems. They seem socially disoriented by a threat they see, in a similar way to how I see yudkowsky crashing communicatively due to a threat. It doesn’t surprise me to see them upset at yudkowsky; both they and yudkowsky strike me as instantiating the waluigi of their own resistance to a thing as partly containing the thing they are afraid of. The things they claim to care about are things worth caring about, but I cannot endorse their strategy. Care for workers, but some of the elements of their acronym very much do intend to prioritize that, and it’s possible to simply ignore them and just keep on doing the right thing. Nobody can make you be a good person, and if someone is trying to, the only thing you can do is let their emotive words pass over you and their thoughtful words act as a claim about their own perspective.
Like yudkowsky, their perspectives on the threat are useful. But there’s no need for either to dismiss the other, in my view—they see the same threat and feel the other side can’t see it. Just keep trying to make the world better and it’ll solve both their problems.
So—anyone have any ideas for how to drastically improve the memetic resistance to confusion attacks of all beings, computer or chemical, and strengthen and broaden caring between circles of concern?
I’d further add—they appropriate the language of anti-appropriation, but are not themselves skilled at recognizing the seeking of equity in social systems. They seem socially disoriented by a threat they see, in a similar way to how I see yudkowsky crashing communicatively due to a threat. It doesn’t surprise me to see them upset at yudkowsky; both they and yudkowsky strike me as instantiating the waluigi of their own resistance to a thing as partly containing the thing they are afraid of. The things they claim to care about are things worth caring about, but I cannot endorse their strategy. Care for workers, but some of the elements of their acronym very much do intend to prioritize that, and it’s possible to simply ignore them and just keep on doing the right thing. Nobody can make you be a good person, and if someone is trying to, the only thing you can do is let their emotive words pass over you and their thoughtful words act as a claim about their own perspective.
Like yudkowsky, their perspectives on the threat are useful. But there’s no need for either to dismiss the other, in my view—they see the same threat and feel the other side can’t see it. Just keep trying to make the world better and it’ll solve both their problems.
So—anyone have any ideas for how to drastically improve the memetic resistance to confusion attacks of all beings, computer or chemical, and strengthen and broaden caring between circles of concern?