I’m afraid the evolution analogy isn’t as convincing an argument for everyone as Eliezer seems to think. For me, for instance, it’s quite persuasive because evolution has long been a central part of my world model. However, I’m aware that for most “normal people”, this isn’t the case; evolution is a kind of dormant knowledge, not a part of the lens they see the world with. I think this is why they can’t intuitively grasp, like most rat and rat-adjacent people do, how powerful optimization processes (like gradient descent or evolution) can lead to mesa-optimization, and what the consequences of that might be: the inferential distance is simply too large.
I think Eliezer has made great strides recently in appealing to a broader audience. But if we want to convince more people, we need to find rhetorical tools other than the evolution analogy and assume less scientific intuition.
MorePravda
The Organ of Rational Inquiry presents its daily edition. A broadsheet newspaper homepage in the spirit of Pravda because “LessWrong” literally means “more correct” means “more truth” means «больше Правды». Features tracked-caps bylines, editorial frames with red star corners, Тов. before every username, an aligned two-column dispatch grid, and the rationalist motto that was always destined for a Soviet masthead: “That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”