TLDR: Gaining attention aggressively in EA may be suboptimal and can be avoided.
This post uses the following stylistic aspects for these purposes:
Vague language to motivate readers accept specific propositions because they agree with some interpretation of the vague statement
improve the odds of things going well … little to do with anything humans value … or something like that … Why would this be dangerous?
Suboptimally addressed fear to keep readers’ attention while decreasing the critique of their engagement
A key focus of the new series will be the threat of misaligned AI
Appeal to unity in fight against a common enemy to reduce the questioning of or disagreement with the propositions due to readers’ fear of consequences of exclusion
part where humans win …
Implying the threat of negative consequences and authority’s unacceptance of an alternative focus to motivate readers’ unquestioning attention
Many people have trouble taking this “misaligned AI” possibility seriously.
Us and them mentality to motivate decisionmaking based on intuition on siding with the most aggressive authority rather than on rational evaluation of the arguments
They might see the broad point that AI could be dangerous, but they instinctively imagine that the danger comes from ways humans might misuse it. … AI could still defeat us all
Appeal to emotion to motivate readers to accept propositions due to emotional state of acceptance.
I’m going to try to make this idea feel more serious and real.
Appeal to the joy of submission to motivate readers’ emotional state of acceptance.
I mean a literal “defeat” in the sense that we could all be killed, enslaved or forcibly contained. … overpowering advanced technologies
Appeal to own enjoyment of siding with an aggressive authority to motivate readers’ similar focus
linger on the point that if such an attack happened, it could succeed against the combined forces of the entire world
Intrusion of readers’ physical spaces to motivate reasoning under stress
don’t have a lot of things that could end human civilization if they “tried” sitting around
Presumption of readers’ communication with the author to motivate engagement by appeal to an authority’s preference.
if you don’t believe that AI could defeat all of humanity combined, I expect that we’re going to be miscommunicating in pretty much any conversation about AI
Use of expressions traditionally used by historically stereotypical authorities to motivate acceptance and limited questioning
The kind of AI I worry about is the kind powerful enough that total civilizational defeat is a real possibility.
Emotional emphasis of the author’s attention to this topic to motivate readers’ attention by care for the author
I currently spend so much time planning around speculative future technologies
Exclusion of readers in author’s work to decrease readers’ engagement and critique
Implication that readers seek to refrain from reading further but are compelled by the author to increase readers’ stress
Below:
Setting standards of any presumed competition when readers are stressed to motivate acceptance of these standards and limit their questioning
rival human civilization in terms of total population and resources.
Appeal to fear of being physically hurt by a larger number of individuals to motivate engagement under stress and attention with the intent of understanding means to avert this threat
At a high level, I think we should be worried if a huge (competitive with world population) and rapidly growing set of highly skilled humans on another planet was trying to take down civilization just by using the Internet.
Appeal to the notion that one is confident to fight physically weaker individuals but reducing the confidence (motivating shame, anger, and willingness to prove one’s physical strength) to motivate action
So we should be worried about a large set of disembodied AIs as well.
Focus on body to make readers’ fear for their bodies or perceive being observed to motivate repetition of the propositions to avoid these perceptions
How can AIs be dangerous without bodies?
Use of allusions to physical aggression that cannot be pinpointed with certainty to motivate trust by avoiding the disappointment of siding with a malevolent authority
nip it in the bud?
Offering the possibility that one can be aggressive to motivate attention with the purpose of understanding means to act aggressively in a way accepted due to the aggressor’s power to hurt and limited consequences.
Isn’t it fine or maybe good if AIs defeat us? They have rights too.
Offering the possibility that one can overpower others to motivate attention with the purpose of understanding the means
how unprecedented it would be to have something on our planet capable of overpowering us all
… I skipped to the last section.
Allusion to the confirmation that one can overpower others if they act fast to motivate impulsive action
humans move slowly and don’t create many AIs?
Allusion to unwanted personal engagement to motivate internalization and repetition of propositions
“dry tinder everywhere, waiting for sparks.”
Deflection from implied propositions by centralizing a current issue to motivate readers to internalize the implied propositions.
I think our concern should be any AI that is able to find enough security holes to attain that kind of freedom. Given the current state of cybersecurity, that seems like a big concern.
While I agree that readers should be aware of the implied propositions, I believe that if they are comfortable and motivated to critically engage, more effective and better accepted by humans action would take place.
Thus, I ask the author to use stylistic aspects for readers’ attention and acceptance based on stress, fear, aggression, us/them, etc only when this is acknowledged and distanced from. If these are difficult to discern, draft readers should be engaged in observing their emotions and the writing should be adjusted.
I am curious about the merits of this style beyond the notion that attention of people in traditionally aggressive systems can be captivated only aggressively. I would like to challenge this notion: systems perceived as traditionally aggressive are based on care (perhaps in narrower circles than in EA); presuming authorities’ (e. g. readers’ superiors’) benevolence and engaging them in developing solutions solves issues more efficiently and sustainably than excluding/‘othering’ them; and people like to engage in systems that prevent or solve important issues rather than those where persons are preoccupied with aggression.
I would like to suggest that a low % of this post focused on solutions. What would be the effects of inverting the %s of solutions coverage and attention captivation?
TLDR: Gaining attention aggressively in EA may be suboptimal and can be avoided.
This post uses the following stylistic aspects for these purposes:
Vague language to motivate readers accept specific propositions because they agree with some interpretation of the vague statement
Suboptimally addressed fear to keep readers’ attention while decreasing the critique of their engagement
Appeal to unity in fight against a common enemy to reduce the questioning of or disagreement with the propositions due to readers’ fear of consequences of exclusion
Implying the threat of negative consequences and authority’s unacceptance of an alternative focus to motivate readers’ unquestioning attention
Us and them mentality to motivate decisionmaking based on intuition on siding with the most aggressive authority rather than on rational evaluation of the arguments
Appeal to emotion to motivate readers to accept propositions due to emotional state of acceptance.
Appeal to the joy of submission to motivate readers’ emotional state of acceptance.
Appeal to own enjoyment of siding with an aggressive authority to motivate readers’ similar focus
Intrusion of readers’ physical spaces to motivate reasoning under stress
Presumption of readers’ communication with the author to motivate engagement by appeal to an authority’s preference.
Use of expressions traditionally used by historically stereotypical authorities to motivate acceptance and limited questioning
Emotional emphasis of the author’s attention to this topic to motivate readers’ attention by care for the author
Exclusion of readers in author’s work to decrease readers’ engagement and critique
Implication that readers seek to refrain from reading further but are compelled by the author to increase readers’ stress
Setting standards of any presumed competition when readers are stressed to motivate acceptance of these standards and limit their questioning
Appeal to fear of being physically hurt by a larger number of individuals to motivate engagement under stress and attention with the intent of understanding means to avert this threat
Appeal to the notion that one is confident to fight physically weaker individuals but reducing the confidence (motivating shame, anger, and willingness to prove one’s physical strength) to motivate action
Focus on body to make readers’ fear for their bodies or perceive being observed to motivate repetition of the propositions to avoid these perceptions
Use of allusions to physical aggression that cannot be pinpointed with certainty to motivate trust by avoiding the disappointment of siding with a malevolent authority
Offering the possibility that one can be aggressive to motivate attention with the purpose of understanding means to act aggressively in a way accepted due to the aggressor’s power to hurt and limited consequences.
Offering the possibility that one can overpower others to motivate attention with the purpose of understanding the means
… I skipped to the last section.
Allusion to the confirmation that one can overpower others if they act fast to motivate impulsive action
Allusion to unwanted personal engagement to motivate internalization and repetition of propositions
Deflection from implied propositions by centralizing a current issue to motivate readers to internalize the implied propositions.
While I agree that readers should be aware of the implied propositions, I believe that if they are comfortable and motivated to critically engage, more effective and better accepted by humans action would take place.
Thus, I ask the author to use stylistic aspects for readers’ attention and acceptance based on stress, fear, aggression, us/them, etc only when this is acknowledged and distanced from. If these are difficult to discern, draft readers should be engaged in observing their emotions and the writing should be adjusted.
I am curious about the merits of this style beyond the notion that attention of people in traditionally aggressive systems can be captivated only aggressively. I would like to challenge this notion: systems perceived as traditionally aggressive are based on care (perhaps in narrower circles than in EA); presuming authorities’ (e. g. readers’ superiors’) benevolence and engaging them in developing solutions solves issues more efficiently and sustainably than excluding/‘othering’ them; and people like to engage in systems that prevent or solve important issues rather than those where persons are preoccupied with aggression.
I would like to suggest that a low % of this post focused on solutions. What would be the effects of inverting the %s of solutions coverage and attention captivation?