I think you are overgeneralizing with the “all.” I (and most people I know) might be mistaken about about how to interact with the public, but I don’t think we’re making the particular mistake you’re worried about. (There might be some people who are, who maybe you correctly identified, but you should be pretty carefully making sweeping statements about “all” people in a group)
Excellent points! Thank you! I should probably just talk about myself as an irrationalist rationalist since that is all I know. As for myself, I once believed that the most rational people (like Habryka and others) could be rational with the public, explain why ASI is dangerous, and everything would be OK. Since then, I have become what seems to be more rational than my old self. I now feel humanity won’t survive indefinitely on this planet because there is no way to get everyone to overcome their evolutionary eemotions with rationality. That’s why I have started thinking about “plan B” for human consciousness. In the meanwhile, I plan to be somewhat flexible in how much of my identity/thoughts I reveal and to whom. Among rationalists, I can reveal everything. Yet among irrational people, I need to be more “flexible” with my identiy/beliefs.
I shouldn’t speak for everyone, or really anyone, besides myself. Thanks for the correction!
I think you’re conflating some things. I recommend reading Bucket Errors, and rereading Rationalist Taboo and breaking down more clearly what you mean by “rational.” (It’s very underspecified what “be rational with the public” means. It could mean a lot of different things)
Thanks for the advice! I’ll do that. What I meant by “being rational with the public” was things like trying to explain AI risk through social media. I plan to still try to do this, but I have lower hopes that I (or anyone else) can convince absolutely everyone of the risk. And it only takes one rogue individual to destroy humanity. Hence, escape plans are needed. I have to go offline for family needs for a while, but I’ll reply to any more replies when I can get back. Thanks again for the advice/ideas!
I think this is still sort of the wrong frame. I also plan to explain AI risk through various social media. I will use different phrasings when talking to different target audiences that I expect to have different cruxes. I think what you’re calling “explaining rationally”, I’d describe as “being insufficiently skilled at explaining things.” (To be fair, it’s often quite hard to explain things! But, that’s because it’s hard, not because people are irrational or rational explaining is impossible)
Good points! I should explain more carefully for my audience. I do worry that, below a certain intelligence level, people might not fully comprehend AI risk, no matter how well I explain it.
And in terms of fundraising, I wonder if another organization with a different name but the same intentions (saving humanity through “logic”) might have less of a reputational cost.
I think you are overgeneralizing with the “all.” I (and most people I know) might be mistaken about about how to interact with the public, but I don’t think we’re making the particular mistake you’re worried about. (There might be some people who are, who maybe you correctly identified, but you should be pretty carefully making sweeping statements about “all” people in a group)
Excellent points! Thank you! I should probably just talk about myself as an irrationalist rationalist since that is all I know. As for myself, I once believed that the most rational people (like Habryka and others) could be rational with the public, explain why ASI is dangerous, and everything would be OK. Since then, I have become what seems to be more rational than my old self. I now feel humanity won’t survive indefinitely on this planet because there is no way to get everyone to overcome their evolutionary eemotions with rationality. That’s why I have started thinking about “plan B” for human consciousness. In the meanwhile, I plan to be somewhat flexible in how much of my identity/thoughts I reveal and to whom. Among rationalists, I can reveal everything. Yet among irrational people, I need to be more “flexible” with my identiy/beliefs.
I shouldn’t speak for everyone, or really anyone, besides myself. Thanks for the correction!
I think you’re conflating some things. I recommend reading Bucket Errors, and rereading Rationalist Taboo and breaking down more clearly what you mean by “rational.” (It’s very underspecified what “be rational with the public” means. It could mean a lot of different things)
Thanks for the advice! I’ll do that. What I meant by “being rational with the public” was things like trying to explain AI risk through social media. I plan to still try to do this, but I have lower hopes that I (or anyone else) can convince absolutely everyone of the risk. And it only takes one rogue individual to destroy humanity. Hence, escape plans are needed. I have to go offline for family needs for a while, but I’ll reply to any more replies when I can get back. Thanks again for the advice/ideas!
I think this is still sort of the wrong frame. I also plan to explain AI risk through various social media. I will use different phrasings when talking to different target audiences that I expect to have different cruxes. I think what you’re calling “explaining rationally”, I’d describe as “being insufficiently skilled at explaining things.” (To be fair, it’s often quite hard to explain things! But, that’s because it’s hard, not because people are irrational or rational explaining is impossible)
Good points! I should explain more carefully for my audience. I do worry that, below a certain intelligence level, people might not fully comprehend AI risk, no matter how well I explain it.
And in terms of fundraising, I wonder if another organization with a different name but the same intentions (saving humanity through “logic”) might have less of a reputational cost.
Sorry for typos. I’m typing from my phone.