I (and my family) are bootstrapping and operating “Everything is Learning”. It’s a program based in Kenya, to implement and mainstream “pre-speech reading and numeracy”starting in local daycares.
Website: EL.africa
Email: steven@EL.africa
bhrdwj🔸
Karma: 8
“For Humans By Humans” is a 💯 appropriate rule-of-thumb for posting I agree.
My comment was FHBH ofc, I wouldn’t be so hypocritical as to post #3 and then violate it in the same moment! 🙏
I see the reputational danger! As soon as someone sees a speaker has mixed generated text into their speech once, the the speaker may be marked as “sus” evermore...
Thanks for the response!
I take your points well. Let me see if I can extrapolate from your enigmatic criticism in more depth:
I should have kept the introduction more to-the-point, especially given the point is probably not a consensus one.
Any “poll of AIs” methodology needs to be consitently accompanied by thorough red-teaming before it can be considered reliable.
Another concern about posts heavy on generative-AI is the dangers of frivolous “cheap talk”. If I’m going to survey AIs, maybe I should relegate all of their generated text into reference-linked pdfs, and keep the main post text carefully FHBH (for humans by humans)!
I agree with these points, and I will address all them in an upgraded re-try soon.
(Recovering from Rejection https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/NDRBZNc2sBy5MC8Fw/recovering-from-rejection)
Wow I’m getting downvoted! 🎉 Care to explain please?! 🙏
I think there’s an intersection between the PauseAI kind of stuff, and a great-powers reconciliation movement.
Most of my scenario-forecast likelihood-mass, where the scenarios feature near-term mass-death situations, exist in this intersection between great-power cold-wars, proxy-wars in the global-south, AI brinkmanship, and asymmetrical biowarfare.
Maybe combining PauseAI with a 🇺🇸/🇨🇳 reconciliation and collaboration movement, would be a more credible orientation.
Moral alignment of AI’s is great. But we need moral alignment of all intelligences. Humans, literal whales, and AIs. Confusion, trauma, misalignment, and/or extinction of some intelligences against others negatively affects the whole Jungian system.
We urgently need great power alignment, and prevention of the coming escalating proxy warfare. “AI-driven urgency for great-power reconciliation” actually ticks all the ITN framework boxes, IMHO.
I don’t see the word “war” or “conflict” in this otherwise nice discussion...
“Specifically, do you see a justification for considering the former global catastrophic risks?”
Which is the “former”, communicable or non-communicable?
Does the development of regional groupings like the EU improve X-risk mitigation, or exacerbate risks?
If they help mitigate risks, how could development of such groupings become aligned with US interests?
看到有很多人投反对票你的原帖，我很伤心！
：（
可能悲观的意见是由于这个文章：https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/Z95TxtkjHGPq4TAqY/why-not-to-rush-to-translate-effective-altruism-into-other
这是两个有关的报价：
“Rather than “translating” effective altruism into new languages, it seems better to think in terms of creating a local movement from scratch that’s inspired by the ideas of effective altruism, but is highly adapted to the local context. Imagine that Will MacAskill was Chinese: then what would he have written?”
...
“Initial efforts to expand effective altruism into new languages should focus on making strong connections with a small number of people who have relevant expertise, via person-to-person outreach instead of mass media.”
还有，这个论坛评论有重视以上文章的重要性：
I must also disagree with the claim in your “Confucius vs Mozi” google-doc, that “Mozi has no conception of moral self-cultivation.”
There is a whole chapter on the topic of “修身” or self-cultivation in Book 1 of Mozi. (https://ctext.org/mozi/self-cultivation)
Here is an excerpt:
“Therefore the superior men are daily more energetic in performing their duty, but weaker in their desires, and more stately in their appearance. The way of the superior man makes the individual incorruptible in poverty and righteous when wealthy; it makes him love the living and mourn the dead. These four qualities of conduct cannot be hypocritically embodied in one’s personality. There is nothing in his mind that goes beyond love; there is nothing in his behaviour that goes beyond respectfulness, and there is nothing from his mouth that goes beyond gentility. When one pursues such a way until it pervades his four limbs and permeates his flesh and skin, and until he becomes white-haired and bald-headed without ceasing, one is truly a sage.”
One might also suppose that a philosopher like Mo Zi focused on universal-caring might be a pacifist, or advocate renouncing the family. But many sections of Mo Zi emphasize military defense, and even more sections emphasize filial piety and paternal affection.
I would characterize Mo Zi’s position on universal love as claiming and supporting the following two points of emphasis:
Enlarging the moral circle creates win/win situations.
It is valuable to give others some level of moral status. Even if they are foreigners, or outside the family unit, there is strategic value in affording them some level of generosity. Leaving a moral-vacuum in one’s sense of care for some out-group is a poor strategy.
I’ve been reading Mo Zi (https://ctext.org/mozi) and I find I must disagree with your claim that Mo Zi “emphasised impartial caring over attachment to one’s family”.
Instead, Mo Zi frames universal caring as a sometimes-difficult but overall more-effective path to general success, including the important end-goal of care for one’s parents.
Let me reference this relevant excerpt as support (https://ctext.org/mozi/universal-love-iii#n691):
“It raises the question, when one does not think in terms of benefits and harm to one’s parents would it be filial piety? Mozi replied: Now let us inquire about the plans of the filial sons for their parents. I may ask, when they plan for their parents, whether they desire to have others love or hate them? Judging from the whole doctrine (of filial piety), it is certain that they desire to have others love their parents. Now, what should I do first in order to attain this? Should I first love others’ parents in order that they would love my parents in return, or should I first hate others’ parents in order that they would love my parents in return? Of course I should first love others’ parents in order that they would love my parents in return. Hence those who desire to be filial to one another’s parents, if they have to choose (between whether they should love or hate others’ parents), had best first love and benefit others’ parents.”
当我看 Will MacAskill 或者其他 EA 学家讨论跟 EA 有关的哲学传统时，我发现他们提到的历史比较偏向欧洲。他们参考许多古代欧洲文献，但很少提及古代亚洲文献。我个人不能对这些 EA 过于批判，因为这个问题是典型的英语母语和西方课程的影响。但这仍然会导致分析和讨论不完整。我也会内疚自己有这样的忽略。
因此，我会开始阅读墨子的翻译和原文，希望将来我会跟中国EA建立更好的联系。
您是否会特别推荐任何其他书籍或章节，以扩展EA, 以更好的方式与我们的中国同事联系？
Proposed corrections to some possible typing errors:
Original text: “Seabirds killed by per capita plastic marine pollution in 2010”
Proposed edit: “Seabirds killed by plastic marine pollution in 2010, per capita”
Similarly:
Original text: “Sea mammals killed by per capita plastic marine pollution in 2010”
Proposed edit: “Sea mammals killed by plastic marine pollution in 2010, per capita”
Discussion:
It’s birds-killed-per-capita, not pollution-per-capita.
Let me amend that. Personally I would have no problem with an AI having its own forum account. But then it would also have to stand on its own merits of conciseness and relevance etc, and earn its own up votes.