I’m not saying the apparent object level claim (ie intelligence implies benevolence) is wrong. Just that it does in fact require further examination. Whereas here it looks like an invisible background assumption.
Did my phrasing not make it clear that this is what I meant, or did you interpret me as I intended and still think it sounds condescending?
For starters, I’d ask him to audit those beliefs. Why does he think that?
Superficially, it seems like he’s assuming intelligence implies benevolence.
Well, yeah, but why does he think THAT?
One way to think about it.
Because it’s so obvious that it doesn’t require further examination. (Of course this is wrong and it does, but he hasn’t figured that out yet.)
That’s quite condescending. How do you know which one of you is wrong?
The one-line answer is “‘Superintelligence implies supermorality!’ thought the cow as the bolt went through its brain.”
I’m not saying the apparent object level claim (ie intelligence implies benevolence) is wrong. Just that it does in fact require further examination. Whereas here it looks like an invisible background assumption.
Did my phrasing not make it clear that this is what I meant, or did you interpret me as I intended and still think it sounds condescending?
Ah, that makes more sense. I did indeed misinterpret it sorry.
No need to apologize. It’s clear in hindsight that I made a poor choice of words.
I think few would claim that. We can point to smart-but-evil folk to demonstrate otherwise. The more defensible idea is that there’s a correlation.