I’d counter that the focus on race and gender is very US-centric rather than culturally universal. I volunteer at a local charity, gender proportions are heavily skewed towards women being the bigger group. I neither find it a problem nor think any diversity measures should be introduced. It also seems fairly intuitive to me that it is the people who are the most privileged that can focus on such problems as AGI Safety and existential risk rather than those who struggle financially to live on the week to week basis.
Michał Zabłocki
Karma: 201
This link is broken for me.
I’m glad you enjoyed teaching philosophy, and I don’t want to negate that you had an impact onto your students. However, I can’t really agree with your optimistic view on the “philosophy classroom’ environment.
I’ve spent 5 years studying philosophy at the university and there is indeed a great benefit to discussing things and disagreeing on them, but what I want to state it goes well only as long as the topic *isn’t* controversial. AI risk, I believe, actually falls in this non-controversial category. However, when the topic actually is personal to people and politically-charged, then I’ve observed that there is no more rational discussion and/or good faith—either in the philosophy classroom, or, let’s say, “philosophical spaces” in the Internet. I can have a different opinion than my colleagues on the nature of time and space and it’s all good, but when it comes to discussing e.g. abortion and there’s disagreement, it’s not so “fun” anymore. At least that’s my experience.
How about better do good;)
I’m not sure piling up on a guy for something he said 26 years ago is helpful in achieving most good.
The writing style here is bad
- [deleted]
I studied philosophy—but I don’t get the argument. Furthermore, I don’t think there’s any such X such that X resolves population ethics.
There have been so many posts on this already—and, oh, here’s another one—seeing the Apology part makes up most of the post. Here’s an opinion from outside: the Apology is not anywhere close to being this serious of an issue it is presented. I’ll say more: many people would even argue the original post Bostrom issued the apology for wasn’t particularly bad. Because many people worldwide may well hold views that here are seen as abhorrent. I’m not sure this holier than thou attitude on the forum is all that beneficial.
I’ve never seriously entertained the idea that EA is like a sect—until now. This is really uncanny.
I honestly don’t feel I’m anywhere near competent to evaluate how good anyone is as a director of some institute.
Scroll down to page 82. No spoilers.
Also, I’ve noticed that MacAskill’s book in bibliography—but just as a general reference I would say. Haven’t spotted any other major philosophical works.
Ok, I should have been clear in the beginning—what struck me was that the first example was essentially answering the question on doing great harm with minimum spendings—a really wicked “evil EA”, I would say. I found it somewhat ironic.
I see it’s indeed page 83 in the document on arxiv; it was 82 in the pdf on OpenAI website
“everyone but cis men” is a pretty vile policy
As a layman: first and foremost correlation that pops in my mind is high reserves ~ responsible spendings. A charity so rich it is dumping money onto buying castles won’t get this negative badge, neither will one that isn’t buying castles but still is set on course to let go their employees the moment the funding slows down.
my guess is most people competent to review philosophy paper either hate Rand or have never read her
I believe that to be true, and to be a very good sign of what kind of an ivory tower philosophy has become.
Is it you, the author? Because your worship of him is akin to Michael’s worship of SBF.
You’re of course entitled to your own opinion but this post mostly comes off as condescending with you claiming to know what’s best for other people, in particular for them to quit their prestigious jobs (rather than, say, quit smoking).
“SBF is an idiot because he’s bad at League of Legends” is the wildest argument I’ve seen in a while.