“The Science of Good and Evil”: An article arguing briefly for the book’s main thesis.
I don’t know if the book is any less bad, but this article is pure Dark Arts, and not even a competent attempt at those. I hardly see a single valid argument made in it. It is a mere collection of emotional appeals, invalid analogies, and ridiculous attempts to sell as “scientific” naive utilitarian ideas that anyone unbiased and moderately competent in critical thinking should be able to rip to shreds without any serious effort.
Like any other ideologue, Harris has a vision of what the social order should be like and how people should live their lives, and he wishes to push it onto those he disagrees with. This is nothing unusual by itself, but the real trouble is that in a way similar to an orthodox Marxist, Harris insists that his ideology has the force of “science” and therefore there can be no tolerance for those pathological elements who refuse to submit to his vision.
Traditional religious people, except for the greatest extremists, at least accept the fact that there will be other people around them who don’t share their religion, so that it’s desirable to find a way to agree to disagree. People like Harris, however, with their faith that their ideology is a product of “science” and thus infallible and necessarily accepted by anyone honest and sane, have no such concerns. Ultimately, if you have different ideas on how you would like to live your life and what kind of society you would like to live in, they are far more dangerous than all but the most extreme religious zealots.
Like any other ideologue, Harris has a vision of what the social order should be like and how people should live their lives, and he wishes to push it onto those he disagrees with.
You could argue against “pushing” the CEV “ideology” on people on the same grounds, couldn’t you?
A coherent vision for the human race that happens to be truly the best thing is something you will feel is your duty to put into action. In fact, it would be your duty.
I suspect that Vladimir doesn’t like Harris because his examples make him a conventional moderate liberal.
Harris is trying to prove that SCIENCE! implies that we all must be conventional moderate liberals.
The first part of that sentence (the “SCIENCE” part) is kind of shoddy. So what we’re left with is “We all must be conventional moderate liberals.” As a conventional moderate liberal, I AM BEHIND THIS ALL THE WAY.
Ignoring the present problems with CEV, which are still deep and insufficiently understood to give any final judgment on that project, the relevant point is that CEV is supposed to solve the problem of existential threat of non-friendly AI, not to achieve improvements on the present human condition. In other words, it’s an attempt to figure out how to ensure that an AI, if implemented, won’t turn us into dog food, not a pseudoscientific recipe for building utopia here and now (which would be just as insane as all such previous ideas).
Assuming an AI will be implemented at some point, CEV will be a preferable alternative to being turned into dog food, and—as a wild speculation—in the hands of a superintelligence, its results might perhaps not even be that bad by other standards. But all this is extremely far-fetched in any case.
You’re using “ideologue” as a dirty word, and bringing in Marxism to taint by association.
If an “ideologue” was right, in your opinion, you wouldn’t condemn him for being too ideological. If you had a vision of the social order that really was how things should be, you’d damn well push it on the reluctant.
In retrospect, I did get carried away a bit writing the above comment, but still, I don’t see any ground for your specific objections:
You’re using “ideologue” as a dirty word,
Only insofar as “ideologue” suggests bias and low intellectual standards due to prioritizing the promotion of ideology over clear thinking. This is, in my view, an entirely fair and objective way to characterize the article in question.
and bringing in Marxism to taint by association.
I brought in Marxism as a pertinent analogy, namely as another example of an ideology whose essential component is that it lays pretense to scientific status. Note also that I said orthodox Marxists, by which I meant the old-school kind who insisted on describing themselves as “scientific socialists.” (These are almost nonexistent nowadays, not least because, insofar as Marxism makes any falsifiable predictions, they have been repeatedly falsified for well over a century now.)
If an “ideologue” was right, in your opinion, you wouldn’t condemn him for being too ideological.
Well, when I read stuff written by people whose overall position has a strong ideological pull on me, I often feel awful frustration when I see invalid reasoning used to argue for positions I sympathize with. But I allow that ideological sympathy is probably clouding my judgment on at least some occasions, and you’re heartily welcome to make a correction should you notice this sometime.
If you had a vision of the social order that really was how things should be, you’d damn well push it on the reluctant.
Even assuming this is true, it is still a lesser sin than doing this pushing in the name of science, so I can nevertheless claim to be less bad, no?
In any case, claiming that all people are equal when it comes to ideological zealotry is simply inaccurate. Some people have much grander and more radical visions, as well as much greater zeal, for pushing their ideological visions on the rest of humanity. For clear reasons, ideologies that make pretenses at scientific status tend to be particularly aggressive in this regard, as the historical record clearly shows.
I don’t know if the book is any less bad, but this article is pure Dark Arts, and not even a competent attempt at those. I hardly see a single valid argument made in it. It is a mere collection of emotional appeals, invalid analogies, and ridiculous attempts to sell as “scientific” naive utilitarian ideas that anyone unbiased and moderately competent in critical thinking should be able to rip to shreds without any serious effort.
Like any other ideologue, Harris has a vision of what the social order should be like and how people should live their lives, and he wishes to push it onto those he disagrees with. This is nothing unusual by itself, but the real trouble is that in a way similar to an orthodox Marxist, Harris insists that his ideology has the force of “science” and therefore there can be no tolerance for those pathological elements who refuse to submit to his vision.
Traditional religious people, except for the greatest extremists, at least accept the fact that there will be other people around them who don’t share their religion, so that it’s desirable to find a way to agree to disagree. People like Harris, however, with their faith that their ideology is a product of “science” and thus infallible and necessarily accepted by anyone honest and sane, have no such concerns. Ultimately, if you have different ideas on how you would like to live your life and what kind of society you would like to live in, they are far more dangerous than all but the most extreme religious zealots.
You could argue against “pushing” the CEV “ideology” on people on the same grounds, couldn’t you?
That was exactly my point.
A coherent vision for the human race that happens to be truly the best thing is something you will feel is your duty to put into action. In fact, it would be your duty.
I suspect that Vladimir doesn’t like Harris because his examples make him a conventional moderate liberal.
Harris is trying to prove that SCIENCE! implies that we all must be conventional moderate liberals. The first part of that sentence (the “SCIENCE” part) is kind of shoddy. So what we’re left with is “We all must be conventional moderate liberals.” As a conventional moderate liberal, I AM BEHIND THIS ALL THE WAY.
Ignoring the present problems with CEV, which are still deep and insufficiently understood to give any final judgment on that project, the relevant point is that CEV is supposed to solve the problem of existential threat of non-friendly AI, not to achieve improvements on the present human condition. In other words, it’s an attempt to figure out how to ensure that an AI, if implemented, won’t turn us into dog food, not a pseudoscientific recipe for building utopia here and now (which would be just as insane as all such previous ideas).
Assuming an AI will be implemented at some point, CEV will be a preferable alternative to being turned into dog food, and—as a wild speculation—in the hands of a superintelligence, its results might perhaps not even be that bad by other standards. But all this is extremely far-fetched in any case.
what’s your problem with utopia? don’t you like nice things?
You’re using “ideologue” as a dirty word, and bringing in Marxism to taint by association.
If an “ideologue” was right, in your opinion, you wouldn’t condemn him for being too ideological. If you had a vision of the social order that really was how things should be, you’d damn well push it on the reluctant.
In retrospect, I did get carried away a bit writing the above comment, but still, I don’t see any ground for your specific objections:
Only insofar as “ideologue” suggests bias and low intellectual standards due to prioritizing the promotion of ideology over clear thinking. This is, in my view, an entirely fair and objective way to characterize the article in question.
I brought in Marxism as a pertinent analogy, namely as another example of an ideology whose essential component is that it lays pretense to scientific status. Note also that I said orthodox Marxists, by which I meant the old-school kind who insisted on describing themselves as “scientific socialists.” (These are almost nonexistent nowadays, not least because, insofar as Marxism makes any falsifiable predictions, they have been repeatedly falsified for well over a century now.)
Well, when I read stuff written by people whose overall position has a strong ideological pull on me, I often feel awful frustration when I see invalid reasoning used to argue for positions I sympathize with. But I allow that ideological sympathy is probably clouding my judgment on at least some occasions, and you’re heartily welcome to make a correction should you notice this sometime.
Even assuming this is true, it is still a lesser sin than doing this pushing in the name of science, so I can nevertheless claim to be less bad, no?
In any case, claiming that all people are equal when it comes to ideological zealotry is simply inaccurate. Some people have much grander and more radical visions, as well as much greater zeal, for pushing their ideological visions on the rest of humanity. For clear reasons, ideologies that make pretenses at scientific status tend to be particularly aggressive in this regard, as the historical record clearly shows.