Wow! the author has read a lot of SI material, including some not meant for a popular audience, and seems to understand it. That is the best mainstream write-up of SI I have seen so far.
I realize that Beck’s job is political pontification (I had to look up whether he was ‘right’ or ‘left’, not that it matters), but this is a very good sign.
Bringing FAI into mass discussion is not valuable in itself, and may be harmful, but social acceptability for the ideas is important in ‘allowing’ the smart and rich people to get involved—not every smart or rich person is willing to swim against the current.
I struggle to think of an idea that Beck’s endorsement would improve the social acceptability of. He is a fringe political figure (to the point where he lost his Fox News show). Associating AGI with Beck makes the idea less socially acceptable in the communities most smart and rich people are found.
Edit: So this comment is getting downvotes. Which is interesting because I intended to be making the exact same argument that I made in this part of the thread in comments that are heavily upvoted. I’m guessing the rhetoric in this comment somehow comes off as politically mind-dead in a way those other comments don’t. That’s either accidental or leaking from cached thoughts I developed when I was heavily political. I don’t care about the downvotes but I am really curious to know what word choices resulted in that overly-political impression since I don’t think the point in this comment is denotationally different from those in the other two.
I think your post was entirely reasonable. At first I was like, “Why would Glen Beck haters care if Glen Beck endorses the SIAI? But then I remembered that I wasn’t a Glen Beck hater. For me, the equivilant of Glen Beck would be someone like Roissy in DC. If Roissy endorsed the SIAI… well I’d probably keep giving but it would take away some of the joy.
For me, the equivilant of Glen Beck would be someone like Roissy in DC. If Roissy endorsed the SIAI… well I’d probably keep giving but it would take away some of the joy.
I don’t have anything against Beck personally (although I think his specific views are hilariously silly & short-sighted & ethically blind), but I too would understand if many people about as left of center as me ideologically would be repelled by such a connection. We must tread carefully; LWers suck at politics.
LWers are great at politics. It’s just that politics suck for LWers.
Edit: Since my meaning wasn’t clear: Mind-killing is a feature not a bug of politics. It is not a truth-seeking activity and getting caught up in the signaling, the motivated thinking and the tribalism is not “being bad at politics”. It’s the opposite.
I think the comment that LWer suck at Politics is the more apt description.
Politics is the art of the possible, and that it deals with WHAT IS, regardless of whether that is “rational.”
And attempting to demand that it conform to rationality standards dictated by this community guarantees that this community will lack political clout.
Especially if it becomes known that the main beneficiaries and promoters of the Singularity have a particularly pathological politics.
Peter Thiel may well be a Libertarian Hero, but his name is instant death in even mainstream GOP circles, and he is seen as a fascist by the progressives.
Glenn Beck is seen as a dangerous and irrationally delusional ideologue by mainstream politicians.
That sort of endorsement isn’t going to help the cause if it becomes well known.
It will tar the Singularity as an ideological enclave of techno-supremists.
NO ONE at Less Wrong seems to be aware of the stigma attached to the Singularity after the performance of David Rose at the “Human Being in an Inhuman World” conference at Bard College in 2010. I was there, and got to witness the reactions of academics and political analysts from New York and Washington DC (some very powerful people in policy circles) who sat, mouths hanging aghast, at what David Rose was saying.
When these people discover that Glenn Beck is promoting the Singularity (and Glenn Beck has some very specific agendas in promoting it, that are very selfish and probably pretty offensive to the ideals of Less Wrong) these people will be even more convinced that the Singularity is a techno-cult composed of some very dangerous individuals.
Peter Theil the current main donor probably dosen’t mind at all. I think potential very rich donors are more like Thiel and less like say Buffet or Gates.
Jack, I get your point and agree with you. I have seen reasonable positions get hijacked by the sincere endorsement of people whose politics is distasteful to others. Without reference to what we personally think about Beck, it is possible that his endorsement will polarize people as they decide to be for or against SI according to their politics.
Wow! the author has read a lot of SI material, including some not meant for a popular audience, and seems to understand it. That is the best mainstream write-up of SI I have seen so far.
I realize that Beck’s job is political pontification (I had to look up whether he was ‘right’ or ‘left’, not that it matters), but this is a very good sign.
Bringing FAI into mass discussion is not valuable in itself, and may be harmful, but social acceptability for the ideas is important in ‘allowing’ the smart and rich people to get involved—not every smart or rich person is willing to swim against the current.
I struggle to think of an idea that Beck’s endorsement would improve the social acceptability of. He is a fringe political figure (to the point where he lost his Fox News show). Associating AGI with Beck makes the idea less socially acceptable in the communities most smart and rich people are found.
Edit: So this comment is getting downvotes. Which is interesting because I intended to be making the exact same argument that I made in this part of the thread in comments that are heavily upvoted. I’m guessing the rhetoric in this comment somehow comes off as politically mind-dead in a way those other comments don’t. That’s either accidental or leaking from cached thoughts I developed when I was heavily political. I don’t care about the downvotes but I am really curious to know what word choices resulted in that overly-political impression since I don’t think the point in this comment is denotationally different from those in the other two.
I think your post was entirely reasonable. At first I was like, “Why would Glen Beck haters care if Glen Beck endorses the SIAI? But then I remembered that I wasn’t a Glen Beck hater. For me, the equivilant of Glen Beck would be someone like Roissy in DC. If Roissy endorsed the SIAI… well I’d probably keep giving but it would take away some of the joy.
Donors affiliate.
I don’t have anything against Beck personally (although I think his specific views are hilariously silly & short-sighted & ethically blind), but I too would understand if many people about as left of center as me ideologically would be repelled by such a connection. We must tread carefully; LWers suck at politics.
LWers are great at politics. It’s just that politics suck for LWers.
Edit: Since my meaning wasn’t clear: Mind-killing is a feature not a bug of politics. It is not a truth-seeking activity and getting caught up in the signaling, the motivated thinking and the tribalism is not “being bad at politics”. It’s the opposite.
I think the comment that LWer suck at Politics is the more apt description.
Politics is the art of the possible, and that it deals with WHAT IS, regardless of whether that is “rational.”
And attempting to demand that it conform to rationality standards dictated by this community guarantees that this community will lack political clout.
Especially if it becomes known that the main beneficiaries and promoters of the Singularity have a particularly pathological politics.
Peter Thiel may well be a Libertarian Hero, but his name is instant death in even mainstream GOP circles, and he is seen as a fascist by the progressives.
Glenn Beck is seen as a dangerous and irrationally delusional ideologue by mainstream politicians.
That sort of endorsement isn’t going to help the cause if it becomes well known.
It will tar the Singularity as an ideological enclave of techno-supremists.
NO ONE at Less Wrong seems to be aware of the stigma attached to the Singularity after the performance of David Rose at the “Human Being in an Inhuman World” conference at Bard College in 2010. I was there, and got to witness the reactions of academics and political analysts from New York and Washington DC (some very powerful people in policy circles) who sat, mouths hanging aghast, at what David Rose was saying.
When these people discover that Glenn Beck is promoting the Singularity (and Glenn Beck has some very specific agendas in promoting it, that are very selfish and probably pretty offensive to the ideals of Less Wrong) these people will be even more convinced that the Singularity is a techno-cult composed of some very dangerous individuals.
Peter Theil the current main donor probably dosen’t mind at all. I think potential very rich donors are more like Thiel and less like say Buffet or Gates.
Jack, I get your point and agree with you. I have seen reasonable positions get hijacked by the sincere endorsement of people whose politics is distasteful to others. Without reference to what we personally think about Beck, it is possible that his endorsement will polarize people as they decide to be for or against SI according to their politics.