It’s interesting that humans seem to have independently invented monasticism, complete with robes and chanting and vows of poverty, at least 3 times, so, well, something is “working” about it one way or the other.
“Something is working” in the sense that this is at least a somewhat naturally-occurring strategy that’s a successful enough meme as to not die out immediately. Not in the sense that this is good for the participants involved, or for the broader community it’s a part of to tolerate.
Extractive and oppressive institutions and stationary bandits have also been independently invented hundreds of times by people. They surely “work” well for those elites reaping the benefits of others’ labor and resources. They surely work poorly for the vast majority of the population.
The product of monasteries is saints, at least in small quantities.
How quaint. The product of extractive and oppressive institutions is renaissance princes, at least in small quantities. How small? Basically irrelevant in the grand scheme of things compared to everything negative that results from them.[1]
The analogy is left to the reader.
But, what’s distinctive about these traditions is that they create people (not every monk, certainly, but a relatively consistent minority, in institutions that sometimes last millennia) capable of outstanding displays of virtue as understood by the broader culture, not just their monastic order, and still recognizable for what they are by us, today, in a foreign culture.
Likely nothing more than a collider effect caused by religion impacting both the creation of these cults and the cultural perception of what being virtuous means.
A monk that self-immolates or spends his whole life separated from civilization is “virtuous” because we are told by culture he’s virtuous. Not because his actions bring about goodness for others. It’s almost the quintessential example of broad indoctrination.
(Fine yes, some people think this is just false, but their arguments insofar as they have them smell like cope. I haven’t seen anti-safetyist arguments that actually address the technical claims made by Eliezer etc.)
Ah yes, never seen arguments that actually address the claims. Except for this, this, this, this, this, this, etc.
Oh wait, those don’t count, you say? They don’t address the real arguments? I’ll leave you this classic 1a3orn post to chew on.
The culture feels something like “confused,” or that it’s forgotten, or at least is quickly forgetting, what all this (being, joy, love, etc.) was for. I don’t have narrow claims about the nature of value in principle, but when I look at what we’re all doing with our time and attention and care, it usually feels monstrous and insane.
This is abstract vagueposting that’s not sufficiently concrete to be thought of as true or false.
What “culture”? Who doesn’t know what positive emotions are for? AI researchers? Alignment researchers? Rationalists? The outside world? All of these groups seem to have a pretty high desire for enjoyment.
On value in principle, the abstractions that are en vogue (usually assuming that value will be straightforwardly tractable to reductionism, or even that we’re almost there, etc.) seem just transparently wrong to me, yes, on the basis of my “”″meditation practice.
Same here. There are words, and they individually make sense. But when put together, the whole doesn’t, at least without having already been exposed to a lot more of your verbiage and thinking. There’s some other ontology you have that needs to be explained before outsiders can make sense of what you’re saying.
One common feature of critiques of Maple which is especially frustrating to me, especially from ex Maplers, is that they can only be made by recourse to some secular liberal scientism, and refuse to meet Maple and Soryu, as they say, “where they’re at.”
Meeting bad and dumb things “where they’re at” is bad and dumb. Meeting good and smart things “where they’re at” is good and smart. If Maple can’t tell its story without immediately coming into conflict with secular liberal science, then that’s Maple’s problem.
Science and secularism and focusing on the cake are good, actually. Just about the best things a community can possibly embrace. To the extent Maple disagrees with this, it should be criticized and ostracized and everyone should stay as far away from it as possible.
Also, many of those renaissance princes are actually horrible people… oh, wait, many of the supposed “saints” are horrible people too!
I think this link is supposed to go to a different URL? (It’s a repeat of the previous link in your comment, which is about something else, so I suspect a simple copy-paste error.)
“Something is working” in the sense that this is at least a somewhat naturally-occurring strategy that’s a successful enough meme as to not die out immediately. Not in the sense that this is good for the participants involved, or for the broader community it’s a part of to tolerate.
Extractive and oppressive institutions and stationary bandits have also been independently invented hundreds of times by people. They surely “work” well for those elites reaping the benefits of others’ labor and resources. They surely work poorly for the vast majority of the population.
How quaint. The product of extractive and oppressive institutions is renaissance princes, at least in small quantities. How small? Basically irrelevant in the grand scheme of things compared to everything negative that results from them.[1]
The analogy is left to the reader.
Likely nothing more than a collider effect caused by religion impacting both the creation of these cults and the cultural perception of what being virtuous means.
A monk that self-immolates or spends his whole life separated from civilization is “virtuous” because we are told by culture he’s virtuous. Not because his actions bring about goodness for others. It’s almost the quintessential example of broad indoctrination.
Ah yes, never seen arguments that actually address the claims. Except for this, this, this, this, this, this, etc.
Oh wait, those don’t count, you say? They don’t address the real arguments? I’ll leave you this classic 1a3orn post to chew on.
This is abstract vagueposting that’s not sufficiently concrete to be thought of as true or false.
What “culture”? Who doesn’t know what positive emotions are for? AI researchers? Alignment researchers? Rationalists? The outside world? All of these groups seem to have a pretty high desire for enjoyment.
Same here. There are words, and they individually make sense. But when put together, the whole doesn’t, at least without having already been exposed to a lot more of your verbiage and thinking. There’s some other ontology you have that needs to be explained before outsiders can make sense of what you’re saying.
Meeting bad and dumb things “where they’re at” is bad and dumb. Meeting good and smart things “where they’re at” is good and smart. If Maple can’t tell its story without immediately coming into conflict with secular liberal science, then that’s Maple’s problem.
Science and secularism and focusing on the cake are good, actually. Just about the best things a community can possibly embrace. To the extent Maple disagrees with this, it should be criticized and ostracized and everyone should stay as far away from it as possible.
Also, many of those renaissance princes are actually horrible people… oh, wait, many of the supposed “saints” are horrible people too!
I think this link is supposed to go to a different URL? (It’s a repeat of the previous link in your comment, which is about something else, so I suspect a simple copy-paste error.)
Indeed it was. Thanks for pointing it out!