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
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)