On the other hand, it is really hard for me to visualize the proposition that there is no kind of mind substantially stronger than a human one. I have trouble believing that the human brain, which just barely suffices to run a technological civilization that can build a computer, is also the theoretical upper limit of effective intelligence. I cannot argue effectively for that, because I do not believe it. Or if you prefer, I do not believe it, because I cannot argue effectively for it. If you want that idea argued, find someone who really believes it.
“I do not believe it, because I cannot argue effectively for it.”—how do you know until you honestly try? Have you done your absolute best effort trying to convince your supporters that they are wrong? What if your major donor said that they would withdraw support unless they judged you to have done your best to invalidate your own arguments, would you simply refuse the money and tell them “find someone who really believes it”?
“I have trouble believing that the human brain, which just barely suffices to run a technological civilization that can build a computer, is also the theoretical upper limit of effective intelligence”—Scott Aaronson seems to have no trouble believing something very similar. Have you gone through his argument and verified that you did come up with it independently earlier and rejected as fallacious?
What about Holden Karnofsky’s arguments, did you find nothing new there? If there was something you hadn’t considered before, you have probably missed an important perspective (in this case of a person who compares causes to donate to).
Have you done your absolute best effort trying to convince your supporters that they are wrong? What if your major donor said that they would withdraw support unless they judged you to have done your best to invalidate your own arguments, would you simply refuse the money and tell them “find someone who really believes it”?
No, because it’s not actually a good idea to try to convince your supporters that they are wrong, especially if you don’t actually think they’re wrong. If someone did tell me to argue compellingly that I am wrong about something important (and assuming I decided not to attempt deceit), I would tell them that someone who actually believes that should be able to provide a more compelling argument (assuming equivalent rhetorical skills, information, etc). If they really insisted on it, I would try, but that really doesn’t seem like a particularly desirable situation. If I could convince my donor to drop this weird request, I would.
On the topic of Eliezer:
Scott Aaronson seems to have no trouble believing it something very similar. Have you gone through his argument and verified that you did come up with it independently earlier and rejected as fallacious? What about Holden Karnofsky’s arguments, did you find nothing new there?
I would assign a reasonably high probability that Eliezer has read Aaronson’s and Karnofsky’s arguments.
Additionally, on a more general level, you really don’t have to have independently considered an argument prior to hearing someone else make it, in order to reject it.
“I do not believe it, because I cannot argue effectively for it.”—how do you know until you honestly try?
I think EY has better reasons than this, the most obvious being: Humans are all stupid in so many blatantly obvious ways, how could it not be possible to do better?
“I do not believe it, because I cannot argue effectively for it.”—how do you know until you honestly try? Have you done your absolute best effort trying to convince your supporters that they are wrong? What if your major donor said that they would withdraw support unless they judged you to have done your best to invalidate your own arguments, would you simply refuse the money and tell them “find someone who really believes it”?
“I have trouble believing that the human brain, which just barely suffices to run a technological civilization that can build a computer, is also the theoretical upper limit of effective intelligence”—Scott Aaronson seems to have no trouble believing something very similar. Have you gone through his argument and verified that you did come up with it independently earlier and rejected as fallacious?
What about Holden Karnofsky’s arguments, did you find nothing new there? If there was something you hadn’t considered before, you have probably missed an important perspective (in this case of a person who compares causes to donate to).
No, because it’s not actually a good idea to try to convince your supporters that they are wrong, especially if you don’t actually think they’re wrong. If someone did tell me to argue compellingly that I am wrong about something important (and assuming I decided not to attempt deceit), I would tell them that someone who actually believes that should be able to provide a more compelling argument (assuming equivalent rhetorical skills, information, etc). If they really insisted on it, I would try, but that really doesn’t seem like a particularly desirable situation. If I could convince my donor to drop this weird request, I would.
On the topic of Eliezer:
I would assign a reasonably high probability that Eliezer has read Aaronson’s and Karnofsky’s arguments.
Additionally, on a more general level, you really don’t have to have independently considered an argument prior to hearing someone else make it, in order to reject it.
I think EY has better reasons than this, the most obvious being: Humans are all stupid in so many blatantly obvious ways, how could it not be possible to do better?
Maybe, but this is the one he gives.
Yes, it is. It was sloppy.