Mostly, I study. I also go to a few conferences (I’ll be at the Singularity Summit) and listen. I even occasionally speak on key issues (IMO), such as (please try thinking WITH these before attacking them. Try agreeing for at least a while.):
“There is no safety in assuring we have a power switch on a super-intelligence. That would be power at a whole new level. That’s pretty much Absolute Power and would bring out the innate corruption / corruptibility / self-interest in just about anybody.”
“We need Somebody to take the dangerous toys (arsenals) away.”
“Just what is Humanity up to that requires 6 Billion individuals?”
All of that is IN MY OPINION. <-- OK, the comments to this post showed me the error of my ways. I’m leaving this here because comments refer to it.
Edited 07/14/2010 because I’ve learned since 2009-09 that I said a lot of nonsense.
I can’t help but think that those activities aren’t going to do much to save humanity. I don’t want to send you into an existential crisis or anything but maybe you should tune down your job description. “Saving Humanity from Homo Sapiens™” is maybe acceptable for Superman. It might be affably egotistical for someone who does preventive counter-terrorism re: experimental bioweapons. “Saving Humanity from Homo Sapiens one academic conference at a time” doesn’t really do it for me.
Plus wishing for all people to be under the rule of a god-like totalitarian sounds to me like the best way to destroy humanity.
Maybe some Homo Sapiens would survive, humanity wouldn’t. Are the human animals in 1984 “people”? After Winston Smith dies is there any humanity left?
I can envision a time when less freedom and more authority is necessary for our survival. But a god-like totalitarian pretty much comes out where extinction does in my utility function.
Oh. My mistake. When you wrote, “Plus wishing for all people to be under the rule of a god-like totalitarian sounds to me like the best way to destroy humanity.”, I read:
[Totalitarian rule… ] … [is] … the best way to destroy humanity, (as in cause and effect.)
OR maybe you meant: wishing … [is] … the best way to destroy humanity
It just never occurred to me you meant, “a god-like totalitarian pretty much comes out where extinction does in my utility function”.
Are you willing to consider that totalitarian rule by a machine might be a whole new thing, and quite unlike totalitarian rule by people?
I can’t help but think that those activities aren’t going to do much to save humanity.
I hear that. I wasn’t clear. I apologise.
I DON’T KNOW what I can do to turn humanity’s course. And, I decline to be one more person who uses that as an excuse to go back to the television set. Those activities are part of my search for a place where I can make a difference.
“Saving Humanity from Homo Sapiens™” is maybe acceptable for Superman.
… but not acceptable from a mere man who cares, eh?
(Oh, all right, I admit, the ™ was tongue-in-cheek!)
Skip down to END BOILERPLATE if and only if you’ve read version v44m
First, please read this caveat: Please do not accept anything I say as True.
Ever.
I do write a lot of propositions, without saying, “In My Opinion” before each one. It can sound preachy, like I think I’ve got the Absolute Truth, Without Error. I don’t completely trust anything I have to say, and I suggest you don’t, either.
Second, I invite you to listen (read) in an unusual way. “Consider it”: think WITH this idea for a while. There will be plenty of time to refute it later. I find that, if I START with, “That’s so wrong!”, I really weaken my ability to “pan for the gold”.
If you have a reaction (e.g. “That’s WRONG!”), please gently save it aside for later. For just a while, please try on the concept, test drive it, use the idea in your life. Perhaps you’ll see something even beyond what I offered.
There will plenty of time to criticize, attack, and destroy it AFTER you’ve “panned for the gold”. You won’t be missing an opportunity.
Third, I want you to “get” what I offered. When you “get it”, you have it. You can pick it up and use it, and you can put it down. You don’t need to believe it or understand it to do that. Anything you BELIEVE is “glued to your hand”; you can’t put it down.
-=-= END BOILERPLATE version 44m
I think we may have different connotations. I’m going to reluctantly use an analogy, but it’s just a temporary crutch. Please drop it as soon as you get how I’m using the word ‘saving’.
If I said, “I’m playing football,” I wouldn’t be implying that I’m a one-man team, or that I’m the star, or that the team always loses when I’m not there. Rigorously, it only means that I’m playing football.
However, it is possible to play football for the camaraderie, or the exercise, or to look good, or to avoid losing. A person can play football to win. Regardless of the position played. It’s about attitude, commitment, and responsibility SEIZED rather than reluctantly accepted.
I DECLARE that I am saving humanity from Homo Sapiens. That’s a declaration, a promise, not a description subject to True / probability / False. I’m playing to win.
Maybe I’ll never be allowed to get on the field. I remember the movie Rudy, about Dan Ruettiger. THAT is what it is to be playing football in the face of being a little guy. That points toward what it is to be Saving Humanity from Homo Sapiens in the face of no evidence and no agreement.
You could give me a low probability of ever making a difference . But before you do, ask yourself, “What will this cause?”
“Some things are worth dying for. Yes, really! And if we can’t get comfortable with admitting it and hearing others say it, then we’re going to have trouble caring enough—as well as coordinating enough—to put some effort into group projects. You’ve got to teach both sides of it, “That which can be destroyed by the truth should be,” and “That which the truth nourishes should thrive.” ”
You, too, can be Saving Humanity from Homo Sapiens. You start by saying so.
The clock is ticking.
With respect and high regard, Rick Schwall, Ph.D. Saving Humanity from Homo Sapiens (seizing responsibility, even if I NEVER get on the field)
I’ve been told that my writing sounds preachy or even religious-fanatical. I do write a lot of propositions without saying “In my opinion” in front of each one. I do have a standard boilerplate that I am to put at the beginning of each missive:
First, please read this caveat: Please do not accept anything I say as True.
Ever.
I do write a lot of propositions, without saying, “In My Opinion” before each one. It can sound preachy, like I think I’ve got the Absolute Truth, Without Error. I don’t completely trust anything I have to say, and I suggest you don’t, either.
Second, I invite you to listen (read) in an unusual way. “Consider it”: think WITH this idea for a while. There will be plenty of time to refute it later. I find that, if I START with, “That’s so wrong!”, I really weaken my ability to “pan for the gold”.
If you have a reaction (e.g. “That’s WRONG!”), please gently save it aside for later. For just a while, please try on the concept, test drive it, use the idea in your life. Perhaps you’ll see something even beyond what I offered.
There will plenty of time to criticize, attack, and destroy it AFTER you’ve “panned for the gold”. You won’t be missing an opportunity.
Third, I want you to “get” what I offered. When you “get it”, you have it. You can pick it up and use it, and you can put it down. You don’t need to believe it or understand it to do that. Anything you BELIEVE is “glued to your hand”; you can’t put it down.
-=-= END Boilerplate
In that post, I got lazy and just threw in the tag line at the end. My mistake. I apologize. I won’t do that again.
With respect and high regard, Rick Schwall Saving Humanity from Homo Sapiens (playing the game to win, but not claiming I am the star of the team)
Also: just because you believe you are not fanatical, doesn’t mean you are not. People can be caught in affective death spirals even around correct beliefs.
Vladimir_Nesov wrote on 11 September 2009 08:34:32AM:
This only makes it worse, because you can’t excuse a signal.
This only makes what worse? Does it makes me sound more fanatical?
Please say more abut “you can’t excuse a signal”. Did you mean I can’t reverse the first impression the signal inspired in somebody’s mind? Or something else?
Also: just because you believe you are not fanatical, doesn’t mean you are not. People can be caught in affective death spirals even around correct beliefs.
OK I’ll start with a prior = 10% that I am fanatical and / or caught in an affective death spiral.
What do you recommend I do about my preachy style?
I appreciate your writings on LessWrong. I’m learning a lot.
Thank you for your time and attention.
With respect and high regard, Rick Schwall, Ph.D. Saving Humanity from Homo Sapiens (seizing responsibility, (even if I NEVER get on the field)
What do you recommend I do about my preachy style?
I suggest trying to determine your true confidence on each statement you write, and use the appropriate language to convey the amount of uncertainty you have about its truth.
If you receive feedback that indicates that your confidence (or apparent confidence) is calibrated too high or too low, then adjust your calibration. Don’t just issue a blanket disclaimer like “All of that is IN MY OPINION.”
Actually, I’m going to restrain myself to just clarifying questions while I try to learn the assumed, shared, no-need-to-mention-it body of knowledge you fellows share.
Cool!
Just am curious.. What do you do for 25 hours a week to save humanity from itself?
Mostly, I study. I also go to a few conferences (I’ll be at the Singularity Summit) and listen. I even occasionally speak on key issues (IMO), such as (please try thinking WITH these before attacking them. Try agreeing for at least a while.):
“There is no safety in assuring we have a power switch on a super-intelligence. That would be power at a whole new level. That’s pretty much Absolute Power and would bring out the innate corruption / corruptibility / self-interest in just about anybody.”
“We need Somebody to take the dangerous toys (arsenals) away.”
“Just what is Humanity up to that requires 6 Billion individuals?”
All of that is IN MY OPINION. <-- OK, the comments to this post showed me the error of my ways. I’m leaving this here because comments refer to it.
Edited 07/14/2010 because I’ve learned since 2009-09 that I said a lot of nonsense.
I can’t help but think that those activities aren’t going to do much to save humanity. I don’t want to send you into an existential crisis or anything but maybe you should tune down your job description. “Saving Humanity from Homo Sapiens™” is maybe acceptable for Superman. It might be affably egotistical for someone who does preventive counter-terrorism re: experimental bioweapons. “Saving Humanity from Homo Sapiens one academic conference at a time” doesn’t really do it for me.
Plus wishing for all people to be under the rule of a god-like totalitarian sounds to me like the best way to destroy humanity.
Jack wrote on 09 September 2009 05:54:25PM:
I don’t wish for it. That part was inside parentheses with a question mark. I merely suspect it MAY be needed.
Please explain to me how the destruction follows from the rule of a god-like totalitarian.
Thank you for your time and attention.
With respect and high regard,
Rick Schwall, Ph.D.
Saving Humanity from Homo Sapiens (seizing responsibility, (even if I NEVER get on the field)
Maybe some Homo Sapiens would survive, humanity wouldn’t. Are the human animals in 1984 “people”? After Winston Smith dies is there any humanity left?
I can envision a time when less freedom and more authority is necessary for our survival. But a god-like totalitarian pretty much comes out where extinction does in my utility function.
IIRC, Winston Smith doesn’t die; by the end, his spirit is completely broken and he’s practically a living ghost, but alive.
Oh. My mistake. When you wrote, “Plus wishing for all people to be under the rule of a god-like totalitarian sounds to me like the best way to destroy humanity.”, I read:
[Totalitarian rule… ] … [is] … the best way to destroy humanity, (as in cause and effect.)
OR maybe you meant: wishing … [is] … the best way to destroy humanity
It just never occurred to me you meant, “a god-like totalitarian pretty much comes out where extinction does in my utility function”.
Are you willing to consider that totalitarian rule by a machine might be a whole new thing, and quite unlike totalitarian rule by people?
Jack wrote on 09 September 2009 05:54:25PM :
I hear that. I wasn’t clear. I apologise.
I DON’T KNOW what I can do to turn humanity’s course. And, I decline to be one more person who uses that as an excuse to go back to the television set. Those activities are part of my search for a place where I can make a difference.
… but not acceptable from a mere man who cares, eh?
(Oh, all right, I admit, the ™ was tongue-in-cheek!)
Skip down to END BOILERPLATE if and only if you’ve read version v44m
First, please read this caveat: Please do not accept anything I say as True.
Ever.
I do write a lot of propositions, without saying, “In My Opinion” before each one. It can sound preachy, like I think I’ve got the Absolute Truth, Without Error. I don’t completely trust anything I have to say, and I suggest you don’t, either.
Second, I invite you to listen (read) in an unusual way. “Consider it”: think WITH this idea for a while. There will be plenty of time to refute it later. I find that, if I START with, “That’s so wrong!”, I really weaken my ability to “pan for the gold”.
If you have a reaction (e.g. “That’s WRONG!”), please gently save it aside for later. For just a while, please try on the concept, test drive it, use the idea in your life. Perhaps you’ll see something even beyond what I offered.
There will plenty of time to criticize, attack, and destroy it AFTER you’ve “panned for the gold”. You won’t be missing an opportunity.
Third, I want you to “get” what I offered. When you “get it”, you have it. You can pick it up and use it, and you can put it down. You don’t need to believe it or understand it to do that. Anything you BELIEVE is “glued to your hand”; you can’t put it down.
-=-= END BOILERPLATE version 44m
I think we may have different connotations. I’m going to reluctantly use an analogy, but it’s just a temporary crutch. Please drop it as soon as you get how I’m using the word ‘saving’.
If I said, “I’m playing football,” I wouldn’t be implying that I’m a one-man team, or that I’m the star, or that the team always loses when I’m not there. Rigorously, it only means that I’m playing football.
However, it is possible to play football for the camaraderie, or the exercise, or to look good, or to avoid losing. A person can play football to win. Regardless of the position played. It’s about attitude, commitment, and responsibility SEIZED rather than reluctantly accepted.
I DECLARE that I am saving humanity from Homo Sapiens. That’s a declaration, a promise, not a description subject to True / probability / False. I’m playing to win.
Maybe I’ll never be allowed to get on the field. I remember the movie Rudy, about Dan Ruettiger. THAT is what it is to be playing football in the face of being a little guy. That points toward what it is to be Saving Humanity from Homo Sapiens in the face of no evidence and no agreement.
You could give me a low probability of ever making a difference . But before you do, ask yourself, “What will this cause?”
It occurs to be that this little sub-thread beginning with “Mostly, I study. ” illustrates what Eliezer was pointing out in “Why Our Kind Can’t Cooperate.”.
“Some things are worth dying for. Yes, really! And if we can’t get comfortable with admitting it and hearing others say it, then we’re going to have trouble caring enough—as well as coordinating enough—to put some effort into group projects. You’ve got to teach both sides of it, “That which can be destroyed by the truth should be,” and “That which the truth nourishes should thrive.” ”
You, too, can be Saving Humanity from Homo Sapiens. You start by saying so.
The clock is ticking.
With respect and high regard,
Rick Schwall, Ph.D.
Saving Humanity from Homo Sapiens (seizing responsibility, even if I NEVER get on the field)
I’m not sure what this was supposed to add, especially with emphasis. Whose opinion would we think it is?
I’ve been told that my writing sounds preachy or even religious-fanatical. I do write a lot of propositions without saying “In my opinion” in front of each one. I do have a standard boilerplate that I am to put at the beginning of each missive:
First, please read this caveat: Please do not accept anything I say as True.
Ever.
I do write a lot of propositions, without saying, “In My Opinion” before each one. It can sound preachy, like I think I’ve got the Absolute Truth, Without Error. I don’t completely trust anything I have to say, and I suggest you don’t, either.
Second, I invite you to listen (read) in an unusual way. “Consider it”: think WITH this idea for a while. There will be plenty of time to refute it later. I find that, if I START with, “That’s so wrong!”, I really weaken my ability to “pan for the gold”.
If you have a reaction (e.g. “That’s WRONG!”), please gently save it aside for later. For just a while, please try on the concept, test drive it, use the idea in your life. Perhaps you’ll see something even beyond what I offered.
There will plenty of time to criticize, attack, and destroy it AFTER you’ve “panned for the gold”. You won’t be missing an opportunity.
Third, I want you to “get” what I offered. When you “get it”, you have it. You can pick it up and use it, and you can put it down. You don’t need to believe it or understand it to do that. Anything you BELIEVE is “glued to your hand”; you can’t put it down.
-=-= END Boilerplate
In that post, I got lazy and just threw in the tag line at the end. My mistake. I apologize. I won’t do that again.
With respect and high regard,
Rick Schwall
Saving Humanity from Homo Sapiens (playing the game to win, but not claiming I am the star of the team)
This only makes it worse, because you can’t excuse a signal. (See rationalization, signals are shallow).
Also: just because you believe you are not fanatical, doesn’t mean you are not. People can be caught in affective death spirals even around correct beliefs.
Vladimir_Nesov wrote on 11 September 2009 08:34:32AM:
This only makes what worse? Does it makes me sound more fanatical?
Please say more abut “you can’t excuse a signal”. Did you mean I can’t reverse the first impression the signal inspired in somebody’s mind? Or something else?
OK I’ll start with a prior = 10% that I am fanatical and / or caught in an affective death spiral.
What do you recommend I do about my preachy style?
I appreciate your writings on LessWrong. I’m learning a lot.
Thank you for your time and attention.
With respect and high regard,
Rick Schwall, Ph.D.
Saving Humanity from Homo Sapiens (seizing responsibility, (even if I NEVER get on the field)
I suggest trying to determine your true confidence on each statement you write, and use the appropriate language to convey the amount of uncertainty you have about its truth.
If you receive feedback that indicates that your confidence (or apparent confidence) is calibrated too high or too low, then adjust your calibration. Don’t just issue a blanket disclaimer like “All of that is IN MY OPINION.”
OK.
Actually, I’m going to restrain myself to just clarifying questions while I try to learn the assumed, shared, no-need-to-mention-it body of knowledge you fellows share.
Thanks.