Man, that abstract does not accurately represent the assumptions. Therefore, it wildly misrepresents the conclusions we should draw from this line of thinking.
Neglecting to say prominently “of course most people would consider this perspective utterly sociopathic” is failing to say the single most important thing about this piece. That’s quite dishonest.
Which is often the case with academic papers. But it’s not acceptable in rationalist circles, or anything more practical than the ivory tower.
The abstract says “developing AGI is like having a risky surgery for a condition that will eventually prove fatal”. True enough.
But if this particular “risky surgery” fails, in this case it also kills everyone else now living and thereby prevents every happy human who ever would’ve lived in subsequent generations from doing so.
Only a monstrous person would take this risk at high odds of failure. What parent would cost their children more years of life, let alone the chance to have children of their own? It’s not even remotely like the high-risk surgery analogy, which affects only the person (or even in the analogy, set of people) making the decision.
Kind of worth noting, wouldn’t you think?
What the hell, Nick? I thought you were an honest person.
I do hope to see an apology and explanation for the framing of this piece. I do not see it in the comments.
The content is fine, but public perception and therefore framing matters.
Man, that abstract does not accurately represent the assumptions. Therefore, it wildly misrepresents the conclusions we should draw from this line of thinking.
Neglecting to say prominently “of course most people would consider this perspective utterly sociopathic” is failing to say the single most important thing about this piece. That’s quite dishonest.
Which is often the case with academic papers. But it’s not acceptable in rationalist circles, or anything more practical than the ivory tower.
The abstract says “developing AGI is like having a risky surgery for a condition that will eventually prove fatal”. True enough.
But if this particular “risky surgery” fails, in this case it also kills everyone else now living and thereby prevents every happy human who ever would’ve lived in subsequent generations from doing so.
Only a monstrous person would take this risk at high odds of failure. What parent would cost their children more years of life, let alone the chance to have children of their own? It’s not even remotely like the high-risk surgery analogy, which affects only the person (or even in the analogy, set of people) making the decision.
Kind of worth noting, wouldn’t you think?
What the hell, Nick? I thought you were an honest person.
I do hope to see an apology and explanation for the framing of this piece. I do not see it in the comments.
The content is fine, but public perception and therefore framing matters.