I appreciate much in this comment, but from my perspective Habryka addresses this concern directly in the quote. I don’t view this as petty or adversarial action, I view this as the (deeply sad) ending of a relationship & breakdown of trust.
(Also to be clear it has not happened yet and they are still talking more in private.)
I don’t view this as [...] adversarial action, I view this as the (deeply sad) ending of a relationship & breakdown of trust.
What does the word adversarial mean to you? That’s a serious question. If you’re ending a relationship over a breakdown of trust, presumably that’s because you think you and your counterparty’s interests are misaligned, such that you’ll behave adversarially to each other in situations where those interests are in conflict. Right? What am I missing here?
I’m worried that a lot of people might be laboring under a folk misconception that “cooperation” is something Good people do, while “defecting” or being “adversarial” is something Bad people do, when that’s really not what these terms mean. Game theory doesn’t moralize; it’s the mathematical structure of the universe that morality lives inside.
Mm, how am I using it in this context? I think that there are graceful ways to end a working (or other) relationship that are not intended punitively. Like, you could pull out of a business deal at a critical moment, in order to cause the most cost that you can to the counter-party, and I would consider that actively adversarial/punitive. But I think it is standard for good-faith business deals to allow either party to graceful back out, and that’s considered acceptable and sad but something you signed up for and that you both agree don’t count as an additional imposition.
I can’t escape the thought that if you are at the point of kicking out Scott Alexander you should consider if you are contributing to evaporative cooling.
Again- Scott speaks for a vast group of people within AI safety. He is not paid mouthpiece for the labs or CG or any of the powerful actors. He is ideologically very close to y’all—his views are probably more than doomer than 90% of people in AI safety broadly. I know Habryka vehemently denies this but from the outside it does very much seem like the narcissism of small differences.
I think I’ve heard your perspective and you’ve heard mine / Habryka’s, and communicating that is I think most of what’s happening here, I’ll bow out of this thread for now.
I appreciate much in this comment, but from my perspective Habryka addresses this concern directly in the quote. I don’t view this as petty or adversarial action, I view this as the (deeply sad) ending of a relationship & breakdown of trust.
(Also to be clear it has not happened yet and they are still talking more in private.)
What does the word adversarial mean to you? That’s a serious question. If you’re ending a relationship over a breakdown of trust, presumably that’s because you think you and your counterparty’s interests are misaligned, such that you’ll behave adversarially to each other in situations where those interests are in conflict. Right? What am I missing here?
I’m worried that a lot of people might be laboring under a folk misconception that “cooperation” is something Good people do, while “defecting” or being “adversarial” is something Bad people do, when that’s really not what these terms mean. Game theory doesn’t moralize; it’s the mathematical structure of the universe that morality lives inside.
Mm, how am I using it in this context? I think that there are graceful ways to end a working (or other) relationship that are not intended punitively. Like, you could pull out of a business deal at a critical moment, in order to cause the most cost that you can to the counter-party, and I would consider that actively adversarial/punitive. But I think it is standard for good-faith business deals to allow either party to graceful back out, and that’s considered acceptable and sad but something you signed up for and that you both agree don’t count as an additional imposition.
“Why are mommy and daddy fighting?”
I can’t escape the thought that if you are at the point of kicking out Scott Alexander you should consider if you are contributing to evaporative cooling.
Again- Scott speaks for a vast group of people within AI safety. He is not paid mouthpiece for the labs or CG or any of the powerful actors. He is ideologically very close to y’all—his views are probably more than doomer than 90% of people in AI safety broadly. I know Habryka vehemently denies this but from the outside it does very much seem like the narcissism of small differences.
I think I’ve heard your perspective and you’ve heard mine / Habryka’s, and communicating that is I think most of what’s happening here, I’ll bow out of this thread for now.