...if a senator wrote an article saying senators’ salaries should be increased, one could respond:
“Of course he would say that. He’s a senator.”
This wouldn’t refute the author’s argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It’s still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there’s something wrong with the senator’s argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn’t, what difference does it make that he’s a senator?
Also, it seems likely to me that publicizing concern with AI risk works against the interests of many in the tech community.
If Matthews wants to engage with this further, I think it’s only fair to the people he’s criticizing to take the time to read Superintelligence so he can understand the position he’s arguing against.
Thanks for the link, I wasn’t aware of that. Still disappointed to see an ad hominem argument. It’s true that Matthews only included it as a throwaway sentence, but this is the kind of characterization that readers can latch on to… feels like within-EA movement disagreements should be kept above the ad hominem level. (Also in favor of engaging opponents in a classy way, but let’s walk before we run.)
This is a DH1 argument on the part of Matthews:
Also, it seems likely to me that publicizing concern with AI risk works against the interests of many in the tech community.
If Matthews wants to engage with this further, I think it’s only fair to the people he’s criticizing to take the time to read Superintelligence so he can understand the position he’s arguing against.
http://www.vox.com/2014/8/19/6031367/oxford-nick-bostrom-artificial-intelligence-superintelligence
Dylan Matthews has read Superintelligence and wrote an article+interview with Bostrom about it in August 2014.
Thanks for the link, I wasn’t aware of that. Still disappointed to see an ad hominem argument. It’s true that Matthews only included it as a throwaway sentence, but this is the kind of characterization that readers can latch on to… feels like within-EA movement disagreements should be kept above the ad hominem level. (Also in favor of engaging opponents in a classy way, but let’s walk before we run.)