Has anyone on lesswrong written actual posts why they are against a pause AI political movement?
I default to assuming uncharitable explanations like:
LW has low-agency people who want to keep their tech job and their friend circles
Status dynamics in Silicon Valley, everyone gets “bad vibes” from politics despite understanding nothing about how politics works or how much power it has or how to do it with integrity. Yudkowsky has changed his mind about engaging with politics but his followers haven’t.
The few high-agency people here are still attempting the weak sauce strategy of persuading US policymakers and natsec circles instead of applying force against them.
If I got more information I could be more charitable to people here.
Like, if you default to uncharitable assumptions, doesn’t that say more about you than about anyone else?
People don’t have to try to dissuade you from the unjustified belief that all your political opponents are bad people, who disagree with you because they are bad rather than because they have a different understanding of the world. Why would I want to talk to someone who just decides that without interacting with me? Sheesh.
My comment does not say anyone is a bad person. I mentioned specific disagreements like people lacking agency, copy-pasting what they see around them, or having an incorrect view of politics. I’m mostly analysing their psychology.
Has anyone on lesswrong written actual posts why they are against a pause AI political movement?
I default to assuming uncharitable explanations like:
LW has low-agency people who want to keep their tech job and their friend circles
Status dynamics in Silicon Valley, everyone gets “bad vibes” from politics despite understanding nothing about how politics works or how much power it has or how to do it with integrity. Yudkowsky has changed his mind about engaging with politics but his followers haven’t.
The few high-agency people here are still attempting the weak sauce strategy of persuading US policymakers and natsec circles instead of applying force against them.
If I got more information I could be more charitable to people here.
Like, if you default to uncharitable assumptions, doesn’t that say more about you than about anyone else?
People don’t have to try to dissuade you from the unjustified belief that all your political opponents are bad people, who disagree with you because they are bad rather than because they have a different understanding of the world. Why would I want to talk to someone who just decides that without interacting with me? Sheesh.
Consider some alternate frames.
My comment does not say anyone is a bad person. I mentioned specific disagreements like people lacking agency, copy-pasting what they see around them, or having an incorrect view of politics. I’m mostly analysing their psychology.
My views on LW
I wrote this recently.
@StanislavKrym Check my website for what I mean