I agree that it would be nice on EA Forum for people to stay disciplined about upvotes versus agree-votes.
It would also be very helpful if there was a norm of people disagree-voting offering, at least some of the time, explicit reasons for their disagreement—even if only brief comments.
My mention of the Banks novel wasn’t intended to be taken too literally as an explanation for why some people take S-risk seriously. (Maybe that was seen as dismissive or mocking, but it certainly wasn’t meant to be.) For me personally, Surface Detail was just the only scenario I’ve seen portrayed in fiction, so far, where there would be any sustainable rationale for AIs to impose long-term suffering on sentient beings.
rime—thanks for your helpful reply.
I agree that it would be nice on EA Forum for people to stay disciplined about upvotes versus agree-votes.
It would also be very helpful if there was a norm of people disagree-voting offering, at least some of the time, explicit reasons for their disagreement—even if only brief comments.
My mention of the Banks novel wasn’t intended to be taken too literally as an explanation for why some people take S-risk seriously. (Maybe that was seen as dismissive or mocking, but it certainly wasn’t meant to be.) For me personally, Surface Detail was just the only scenario I’ve seen portrayed in fiction, so far, where there would be any sustainable rationale for AIs to impose long-term suffering on sentient beings.