Many people seem to have set their priors to 1 on several facts. I suspect even MiniLuv would have a hard time getting these guys to believe that Christianity is false.
In other words:
Bob: “Abortion is wrong.”
Sally: “Do you think that this is something of which most humans ought to be persuadable?”
Bob: “Yes, I do. Do you think abortion is right?”
Sally: “Yes, I do. And I don’t think that’s because I’m a psychopath by common human standards. I think most humans would come to agree with me, if they knew the facts I knew, and heard the same moral arguments I’ve heard.”
Bob and Sally are wrong. Well, half-wrong, anyway. A human’s beliefs depend on the order in which he hears arguments. If I info-dumped all my experiences into the Pope’s mind, and vice-versa, he’d still be a Christian and I’d still be an atheist.
I do not think that rational arguments and evidence are sufficient to convince people to change a sufficiently stubborn belief.
Eliezer, you’ve used your AI-box experiment as an example that people can be persuaded. If you had the Pope in a holodeck that you completely controlled, do you think you could convince him that Jesus was never resurrected? I really doubt it.
Many people seem to have set their priors to 1 on several facts. I suspect even MiniLuv would have a hard time getting these guys to believe that Christianity is false.
In other words:
Bob and Sally are wrong. Well, half-wrong, anyway. A human’s beliefs depend on the order in which he hears arguments. If I info-dumped all my experiences into the Pope’s mind, and vice-versa, he’d still be a Christian and I’d still be an atheist.
I do not think that rational arguments and evidence are sufficient to convince people to change a sufficiently stubborn belief.
Eliezer, you’ve used your AI-box experiment as an example that people can be persuaded. If you had the Pope in a holodeck that you completely controlled, do you think you could convince him that Jesus was never resurrected? I really doubt it.