Does that mean people for whom rationalism is a near-terminal goal that cannot become a lost purpose?
Maybe in some way, but not in the way that you interpret it to mean… I emphasize the importance of noticing lost purposes, which is central to both epistemic and instrumental rationality. Elsewhere in this thread I re-wrote the post without the cool links, if you’re interested in figuring out what I originally meant. I apologize for the vagueness.
As for your second critique, I’m not claiming that Eliezer’s message is particularly flawed, just suggesting an improvement over current norms of which Eliezer’s original message could be taken as partially representative, even if it makes perfect sense in context. That is, Eliezer’s message isn’t really important to the point of the post and can be ignored.
Sunzi said: The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected. The art of war, then, is governed by five constant factors, to be taken into account in one’s deliberations, when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field. These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth; (4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline. The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.
The very first factor in the very first chapter of The Art of War is about the importance of synchronous goals between agents and represented. It is instrumental in preserving the state. It is also instrumental in preserving the state (sic).
Sun Tzu replied: “Having once received His Majesty’s commission to be the general of his forces, there are certain commands of His Majesty which, acting in that capacity, I am unable to accept.” Accordingly, he had the two leaders beheaded, and straightway installed the pair next in order as leaders in their place.
A metaphor.
ridiculously strong aversion
The iron is hot, some feel fear.
just suggesting an improvement
You aren’t though.
You’re expressing belief in a possible downside of current practice. We can say, unconditionally and flatly, that it is a downside, if real, without it being right to minimize that downside. To your credit, you also argue that effects on the average influenced person are less valuable than is generally thought, which if true would be a step towards indicating a change in policy would be good.
But beyond that, you don’t articulate what would be a superior policy, and you have a lot of intermediary conclusions to establish to make a robust criticism.
Maybe in some way, but not in the way that you interpret it to mean… I emphasize the importance of noticing lost purposes, which is central to both epistemic and instrumental rationality. Elsewhere in this thread I re-wrote the post without the cool links, if you’re interested in figuring out what I originally meant. I apologize for the vagueness.
As for your second critique, I’m not claiming that Eliezer’s message is particularly flawed, just suggesting an improvement over current norms of which Eliezer’s original message could be taken as partially representative, even if it makes perfect sense in context. That is, Eliezer’s message isn’t really important to the point of the post and can be ignored.
The very first factor in the very first chapter of The Art of War is about the importance of synchronous goals between agents and represented. It is instrumental in preserving the state. It is also instrumental in preserving the state (sic).
Even so,
A metaphor.
The iron is hot, some feel fear.
You aren’t though.
You’re expressing belief in a possible downside of current practice. We can say, unconditionally and flatly, that it is a downside, if real, without it being right to minimize that downside. To your credit, you also argue that effects on the average influenced person are less valuable than is generally thought, which if true would be a step towards indicating a change in policy would be good.
But beyond that, you don’t articulate what would be a superior policy, and you have a lot of intermediary conclusions to establish to make a robust criticism.
Correct, I was imprecise. I’m listing a downside and listing nonobvious considerations that make it more of a downside than might be assumed.