I think anti-tech v. pro-tech is in fact going to be more important a political axis orthogonal to the left-right axis as time goes on (and OP seems like clear evidence for that?), and the position you suggest is just ‘centrism’ on that axis. See fallacy of gray.
How would you define pro-tech, which I assume you identify as? For example, should AI replace humanity a) in any case if it can, b) only if it’s conscious, c) not at all?
Consider an axis where on one end you’ve got Shock Level Four and on an opposite end you’ve got John Zerzan. Anything in between is some gradation of gray where you accept some proportion p of all available technology.
Scifi was probably fun to think about for some in the 90s but things got more serious when it became clear the singularity could kill everyone we love. Yud bit the bullet and now says we should stop AI before it kills us. Did you bite that bullet too? If so, you’re not purely pro-tech anymore whether you like it or not. (Which I think shouldn’t matter because pro- and anti-tech has always been a silly way to look at the world.)
I think this is a silly argument, comparable to saying if you don’t want to bit the bullet of Esoteric Hitlerism you aren’t a true right-winger, or if you don’t want to bit the bullet of Posadism you aren’t a true left-winger. Yud as of right now believe we should have research intelligence augmentation technology to have supercharged AI safety researchers build Friendly AI right?
I think anti-tech v. pro-tech is in fact going to be more important a political axis orthogonal to the left-right axis as time goes on (and OP seems like clear evidence for that?), and the position you suggest is just ‘centrism’ on that axis. See fallacy of gray.
How would you define pro-tech, which I assume you identify as? For example, should AI replace humanity a) in any case if it can, b) only if it’s conscious, c) not at all?
Consider an axis where on one end you’ve got Shock Level Four and on an opposite end you’ve got John Zerzan. Anything in between is some gradation of gray where you accept some proportion p of all available technology.
Scifi was probably fun to think about for some in the 90s but things got more serious when it became clear the singularity could kill everyone we love. Yud bit the bullet and now says we should stop AI before it kills us. Did you bite that bullet too? If so, you’re not purely pro-tech anymore whether you like it or not. (Which I think shouldn’t matter because pro- and anti-tech has always been a silly way to look at the world.)
I think this is a silly argument, comparable to saying if you don’t want to bit the bullet of Esoteric Hitlerism you aren’t a true right-winger, or if you don’t want to bit the bullet of Posadism you aren’t a true left-winger. Yud as of right now believe we should have research intelligence augmentation technology to have supercharged AI safety researchers build Friendly AI right?