The lower P(evil | no evil crazy dictator), the higher P(evil crazy dictator) or P(evil | evil crazy dictator), to produce the frequency of evil we see in history. So probably we should be much more cautious of situations where it seems one might arise.
That sounds as if you are imagining a causal graph with arrows from “history” to “evil crazy dictator” and from “history” to “evil”, but not from “evil crazy dictator” to “evil”. So when you cut off the first arrow, this changes none of the causal influences on “evil”. But there should be an arrow from “evil crazy dictator” to “evil”. “History” does not reacharound all the people, to cause “evil” directly, independently of what the people do.
No, but we know already know “evil”. Stuart is suggesting changing one of the arrows that lead up to this node; conditional on our already knowing the value of this node, we need to change other arrows to keep the fit.
I’m just talking of taking one evil crazy dictator out of the mix, and the consequences of his existence. Most of the real dire things of the twentieth century are due to Hitler, or an outgrowth of the communism he caused to become such a potent force.
Two sources to enlighten this conversation:
1) http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills --12 million non-jew dissenters also murdered by the nazi regime. Also,
2) http://peikoff.com/lr/home.htm --”The Ominous Parallels” by Leonard Peikoff—the Weimar was already philosophically and legally decayed. When you eliminate jury trials and robust freedom of speech, you get a tyrannical (and possibly democidal) regime
The prospect of an existential or near-existential risk from a Singularity-delaying/preventing tyranny is the primary reason to be a rationalist—if you’re enough of one to allocate your resources toward a viable strategy of preventing democide.
The lower P(evil | no evil crazy dictator), the higher P(evil crazy dictator) or P(evil | evil crazy dictator), to produce the frequency of evil we see in history. So probably we should be much more cautious of situations where it seems one might arise.
You are holding the frequency of evil constant while removing one of its possible causes. Why do that?
The frequency of evil is given to us by the history of the world. Counterfactual considerations give us the conditional probabilities.
That sounds as if you are imagining a causal graph with arrows from “history” to “evil crazy dictator” and from “history” to “evil”, but not from “evil crazy dictator” to “evil”. So when you cut off the first arrow, this changes none of the causal influences on “evil”. But there should be an arrow from “evil crazy dictator” to “evil”. “History” does not reach around all the people, to cause “evil” directly, independently of what the people do.
No, but we know already know “evil”. Stuart is suggesting changing one of the arrows that lead up to this node; conditional on our already knowing the value of this node, we need to change other arrows to keep the fit.
I’m just talking of taking one evil crazy dictator out of the mix, and the consequences of his existence. Most of the real dire things of the twentieth century are due to Hitler, or an outgrowth of the communism he caused to become such a potent force.
Two sources to enlighten this conversation: 1) http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills --12 million non-jew dissenters also murdered by the nazi regime. Also, 2) http://peikoff.com/lr/home.htm --”The Ominous Parallels” by Leonard Peikoff—the Weimar was already philosophically and legally decayed. When you eliminate jury trials and robust freedom of speech, you get a tyrannical (and possibly democidal) regime The prospect of an existential or near-existential risk from a Singularity-delaying/preventing tyranny is the primary reason to be a rationalist—if you’re enough of one to allocate your resources toward a viable strategy of preventing democide.
Thanks Jake Witmer 312-730-4037