There seems to be a whole lot of talking-past happening with LWers and Hanson. He has a lot of value to contribute to the debate, but maybe the way he communicates that is offputting to people here.
For example, this recent post reiterates a lot of points that Hanson has been making for decades, but doesn’t mention or cite his work anywhere. I find it quite bizarre.
I think this post is being as uncharitable to Hanson as he is being to ‘the doomers’. This kind of reciprocal deliberate misunderstanding is silly, and LW should be above it and enjoy and respect Hansons contributions for all the good they contain and not dismiss them on the vibes level.
I mean, Hanson has certainly earned being ruled in as a thinker many times over. But a key part of ruling people in rather than out is being able to notice when stuff they’re saying doesn’t make sense.
Maybe you could point out the actual object level places where you think I (deliberately!?) misunderstood Hanson?
I disagree on the inference to the recent post, which I quite liked and object heavily to Hanson’s conclusions.
The ideal end state is very different: in the post mentioned, biological humans, if cyborgs, are in control. The Hanson endpoint has only digital emulations of humanity.
This is the basic distinguishing point between the philosophies of Cyborgism vs more extreme ones like mind uploading or Hanson’s extinction of humanity as we know it for “artificial descendants.”
There seems to be a whole lot of talking-past happening with LWers and Hanson. He has a lot of value to contribute to the debate, but maybe the way he communicates that is offputting to people here.
For example, this recent post reiterates a lot of points that Hanson has been making for decades, but doesn’t mention or cite his work anywhere. I find it quite bizarre.
I think this post is being as uncharitable to Hanson as he is being to ‘the doomers’. This kind of reciprocal deliberate misunderstanding is silly, and LW should be above it and enjoy and respect Hansons contributions for all the good they contain and not dismiss them on the vibes level.
I mean, Hanson has certainly earned being ruled in as a thinker many times over. But a key part of ruling people in rather than out is being able to notice when stuff they’re saying doesn’t make sense.
Maybe you could point out the actual object level places where you think I (deliberately!?) misunderstood Hanson?
I disagree on the inference to the recent post, which I quite liked and object heavily to Hanson’s conclusions.
The ideal end state is very different: in the post mentioned, biological humans, if cyborgs, are in control. The Hanson endpoint has only digital emulations of humanity.
This is the basic distinguishing point between the philosophies of Cyborgism vs more extreme ones like mind uploading or Hanson’s extinction of humanity as we know it for “artificial descendants.”