I was curious about guesses as to why this happens to me lately (a lot of upfront disagree votes and karma hovering around zero until the views are high enough) but getting that answer is still pretty hard for me to hear without being angry.
I’m curious whether you’re closer to angry that someone might read your opening paragraph as saying “you should discard the concept of warning shots” or angry that they might disagree-vote if they read it that way (or something else).
No I’m angry that people feel affronted by me pointing out that normal warning shot discourse entailed hoping for a disaster without feeling much need make sure that would be helpful. They should be glad that they have a chance to catch themselves, but instead they silently downvote.
Just feels like so much of the vibe of this forum is people expecting to be catered to, like their support is some prize, rather than people wanting to find out for themselves how to help the world. A lot of EAs have felt comfortable dismissing PauseAI bc it’s not their vibe or they didn’t feel like the case was made in the right way or they think their friends won’t support it, and it drives me crazy bc aren’t they curious??? Don’t they want to think about how to address AI danger from every angle?
Ok but jtbc that characterization of “affronted” is not the hypothesis I was offering (I don’t want to say it wasn’t a part of the downvoting, but I’d guess a minority).
I would personally kind of like it if people actively explored angles on things more. But man, there are so many things to read on AI these days that I do kind of understand when people haven’t spent time considering things I regard as critical path (maybe I should complain more!), and I honestly find it’s hard to too much fault people for using “did it seem wrong near the start in a way that makes it harder to think” as a heuristic for how deeply to engage with material.
I was curious about guesses as to why this happens to me lately (a lot of upfront disagree votes and karma hovering around zero until the views are high enough) but getting that answer is still pretty hard for me to hear without being angry.
I’m curious whether you’re closer to angry that someone might read your opening paragraph as saying “you should discard the concept of warning shots” or angry that they might disagree-vote if they read it that way (or something else).
No I’m angry that people feel affronted by me pointing out that normal warning shot discourse entailed hoping for a disaster without feeling much need make sure that would be helpful. They should be glad that they have a chance to catch themselves, but instead they silently downvote.
Just feels like so much of the vibe of this forum is people expecting to be catered to, like their support is some prize, rather than people wanting to find out for themselves how to help the world. A lot of EAs have felt comfortable dismissing PauseAI bc it’s not their vibe or they didn’t feel like the case was made in the right way or they think their friends won’t support it, and it drives me crazy bc aren’t they curious??? Don’t they want to think about how to address AI danger from every angle?
Ok but jtbc that characterization of “affronted” is not the hypothesis I was offering (I don’t want to say it wasn’t a part of the downvoting, but I’d guess a minority).
I would personally kind of like it if people actively explored angles on things more. But man, there are so many things to read on AI these days that I do kind of understand when people haven’t spent time considering things I regard as critical path (maybe I should complain more!), and I honestly find it’s hard to too much fault people for using “did it seem wrong near the start in a way that makes it harder to think” as a heuristic for how deeply to engage with material.