It seems like some of these areas are hugely important. I think that “tools for thought” and human computer interfaces are important and will play a much bigger role in a few years than they do now.
I think there’s a issue here with one of these topics:
I think there are many people who will never work on this because of the associations. Also, this might not just affect this area but all projects or communities associated with this.
Do you have any thoughts about the practicalities of advancing this?
Also, I might write something critically on unrelated topics. I wanted say this because I think it can feel obnoxious if you give a nice response but then I continue to write something further negative.
(Strongly endorse you giving further critical feedback—this is a new area, and the more the other side is steelmanned, the better the decision that can be reached about whether and how to prioritize it. That said, I don’t think this criticism is particularly good, per Ozzie’s response.)
(I need to summarize the ROT, to respond) The issue here is with political issues around the “genetic modifications” category I listed. I agree these are substantial issues for this category, but don’t think these issues should bleed into the other areas.
Strong “wisdom and intelligence prioritization” work would hopefully inform us on the viability here. I assume the easy position, for many reasons, is just “stay totally away from genetic modifications, and focus instead on the other categories.” It would probably take a very high bar and a lot of new efforts (for example, finding ways to get some of the advantages without the disadvantages) to feel secure enough to approach it.
I’m fairly confident that the majority of the other intervention areas I listed would be dramatically less controversial.
It seems like some of these areas are hugely important. I think that “tools for thought” and human computer interfaces are important and will play a much bigger role in a few years than they do now.
I think there’s a issue here with one of these topics:
ROT13:
I think there are many people who will never work on this because of the associations. Also, this might not just affect this area but all projects or communities associated with this.
Do you have any thoughts about the practicalities of advancing this?
Also, I might write something critically on unrelated topics. I wanted say this because I think it can feel obnoxious if you give a nice response but then I continue to write something further negative.
(Strongly endorse you giving further critical feedback—this is a new area, and the more the other side is steelmanned, the better the decision that can be reached about whether and how to prioritize it. That said, I don’t think this criticism is particularly good, per Ozzie’s response.)
(I need to summarize the ROT, to respond)
The issue here is with political issues around the “genetic modifications” category I listed.
I agree these are substantial issues for this category, but don’t think these issues should bleed into the other areas.
Strong “wisdom and intelligence prioritization” work would hopefully inform us on the viability here. I assume the easy position, for many reasons, is just “stay totally away from genetic modifications, and focus instead on the other categories.” It would probably take a very high bar and a lot of new efforts (for example, finding ways to get some of the advantages without the disadvantages) to feel secure enough to approach it.
I’m fairly confident that the majority of the other intervention areas I listed would be dramatically less controversial.