Great first post.
(Even if I don’t understand all the ‘left’ and
‘right’ stuff.)
Your argument seems compelling,
but let’s test it against two activists,
Greta Thunberg and Richard Stallman.[1]
On the one hand,
Thunberg’s climate activism seems to have gone off the rails.
In the past,
Thunberg presented climate change as an existential threat
(or something very close to that),
and made extreme changes in her own life consistent with that.
But now,
Thunberg seems to have more than diluted the climate issue;
she seems to have dropped it entirely.
I have no idea what happened.
Did she change her mind?
Did she continue to believe that climate change was an existential threat
but somehow lose interest anyway?
This vaguely bothered me even before reading your post.
On the other hand,
it’s perfectly clear what Stallman believes in.
In particular,
even if Stallman’s primary focus lies elsewhere,
it’s perfectly clear that Stallman also believes that climate change is an
existential threat.[2]
That remains clear despite the fact that Stallman also prolifically posts
about all sorts of other things.[3]
When I see those other posts,
I don’t think Stallman has forgotten about or devalued the climate issue,
I just think he’s done as much as he can already,
so he’d might as well spend his remaining time on other important issues.
I also think he has a healthy balance
(at least as far as these issues are concerned):
if you’re going to fight for decades to save the world,
you should also spend some time making sure that world is worth living in.
Having said that,
I have to admit:
when Stallman posts about trivial things,
like his petty disputes over terminology,
I do get annoyed at his apparent distraction.
So maybe Stallman is somewhat like Thunberg after all.
It’s a spectrum where some people are less annoying and some people are more annoying, but in the end every time you talk about things unrelated to your main cause(s), you pay a tax by actively pushing away people who don’t already agree with you on everything (read: most people) for no real benefit to your main cause(s). And since AI safety is already the hardest problem humanity has ever faced, I don’t get the feeling that the AI safety movement can afford that tax.
And Stallman is a great example because the man had a lot of excellent ideas, but he was such a poor communicator that he really shot himself in the foot again and again for (I repeat) no benefit. Just look at why he had to resign as president of the FSF — you cannot look at that and reasonably say that this was good decision-making that furthered his cause(s).
Stallman is also a great example because he is a much more typical failure mode to be aware of for the average person in the AI safety movement than someone like Thunberg. That failure mode looks like this:
a) I am smarter than everyone else on technical questions b) Since I am smarter than everyone else on technical questions, I am smarter than everyone else in general c) Since I am smarter than everyone else in general, I can get away with things a normal human would never get away with: being very annoying, very hurtful, or focusing on ten problems at the same time
I have met a number of people in the AI safety movement who resemble this pattern, and we need to be very careful not to fall into it, but instead to think more along the lines of:
a) I am smarter than normal people on technical questions b) It is very unclear how much that generalizes — for example, I might be terrible at policymaking questions or business questions (or whatever else) c) Since AI safety is an incredibly hard problem whose solution has to come together from multiple vastly different domains, I will stay very focused on the problem at hand, I will remain humble and vigilant about my own opinions, and I will especially be nice, because being mean brings my cause absolutely nothing
Great first post. (Even if I don’t understand all the ‘left’ and ‘right’ stuff.)
Your argument seems compelling, but let’s test it against two activists, Greta Thunberg and Richard Stallman. [1]
On the one hand, Thunberg’s climate activism seems to have gone off the rails. In the past, Thunberg presented climate change as an existential threat (or something very close to that), and made extreme changes in her own life consistent with that. But now, Thunberg seems to have more than diluted the climate issue; she seems to have dropped it entirely.
I have no idea what happened. Did she change her mind? Did she continue to believe that climate change was an existential threat but somehow lose interest anyway? This vaguely bothered me even before reading your post.
On the other hand, it’s perfectly clear what Stallman believes in. In particular, even if Stallman’s primary focus lies elsewhere, it’s perfectly clear that Stallman also believes that climate change is an existential threat. [2] That remains clear despite the fact that Stallman also prolifically posts about all sorts of other things. [3]
When I see those other posts, I don’t think Stallman has forgotten about or devalued the climate issue, I just think he’s done as much as he can already, so he’d might as well spend his remaining time on other important issues. I also think he has a healthy balance (at least as far as these issues are concerned): if you’re going to fight for decades to save the world, you should also spend some time making sure that world is worth living in.
Having said that, I have to admit: when Stallman posts about trivial things, like his petty disputes over terminology, I do get annoyed at his apparent distraction. So maybe Stallman is somewhat like Thunberg after all.
This choice is completely subjective; they just happen to be two activists that come to my mind.
Particularly good posts include Children from all countries exposed to climate hazards, Global heating threatens national security and ‘subsidizing energy made from fossil fuels is killing civilization’, but Stallman posts something climate-related almost every day.
This includes everything from petty disputes over terminology to child development to foreign politics to Palestine (and that’s just a small selection of items from the last few days).
It’s a spectrum where some people are less annoying and some people are more annoying, but in the end every time you talk about things unrelated to your main cause(s), you pay a tax by actively pushing away people who don’t already agree with you on everything (read: most people) for no real benefit to your main cause(s). And since AI safety is already the hardest problem humanity has ever faced, I don’t get the feeling that the AI safety movement can afford that tax.
And Stallman is a great example because the man had a lot of excellent ideas, but he was such a poor communicator that he really shot himself in the foot again and again for (I repeat) no benefit. Just look at why he had to resign as president of the FSF — you cannot look at that and reasonably say that this was good decision-making that furthered his cause(s).
Stallman is also a great example because he is a much more typical failure mode to be aware of for the average person in the AI safety movement than someone like Thunberg. That failure mode looks like this:
a) I am smarter than everyone else on technical questions
b) Since I am smarter than everyone else on technical questions, I am smarter than everyone else in general
c) Since I am smarter than everyone else in general, I can get away with things a normal human would never get away with: being very annoying, very hurtful, or focusing on ten problems at the same time
I have met a number of people in the AI safety movement who resemble this pattern, and we need to be very careful not to fall into it, but instead to think more along the lines of:
a) I am smarter than normal people on technical questions
b) It is very unclear how much that generalizes — for example, I might be terrible at policymaking questions or business questions (or whatever else)
c) Since AI safety is an incredibly hard problem whose solution has to come together from multiple vastly different domains, I will stay very focused on the problem at hand, I will remain humble and vigilant about my own opinions, and I will especially be nice, because being mean brings my cause absolutely nothing
(which, to be fair, immediately reminds you of the 12 virtues of rationality)