Those are two really different directions. One option is just outright dismiss the other person. The other is cede the argument completely but claim Moloch completely dominates that argument too. Is this really how you want to argue stuff—everything is either 0 or the next level up of infinity?
I do believe the “eurocentric” argument is a manifestation of moloch, it is the new version of “x is the next hitler” or “y was done by the nazis”, it can be used to dismiss any argument coming from the west and to justify almost anything, for example it could be used by china or any latin american country putting an AGI in the government by saying: “AI safety is an eurocentric concept made to perpetuate western hegemony”
So as a rule of thumb, I refuse to giving anyone saying that the benefit of the doubt, in my model anyone using that argument has a hidden agenda behind it and even if they don’t, the false positives are not enough to change my mind, it’s a net positive personal policy, sorry not sorry
Those are two really different directions. One option is just outright dismiss the other person. The other is cede the argument completely but claim Moloch completely dominates that argument too. Is this really how you want to argue stuff—everything is either 0 or the next level up of infinity?
I do believe the “eurocentric” argument is a manifestation of moloch, it is the new version of “x is the next hitler” or “y was done by the nazis”, it can be used to dismiss any argument coming from the west and to justify almost anything, for example it could be used by china or any latin american country putting an AGI in the government by saying: “AI safety is an eurocentric concept made to perpetuate western hegemony”
So as a rule of thumb, I refuse to giving anyone saying that the benefit of the doubt, in my model anyone using that argument has a hidden agenda behind it and even if they don’t, the false positives are not enough to change my mind, it’s a net positive personal policy, sorry not sorry