Ryze

• Ryze 11 Mar 2023 5:33 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: diodio_yang’s comment on: Do you worry about to­tal­i­tar­ian regimes us­ing AI Align­ment tech­nol­ogy to cre­ate AGI that sub­scribe to their val­ues?

  Thanks I’ll check it out!

• Ryze 1 Mar 2023 3:38 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Do you worry about to­tal­i­tar­ian regimes us­ing AI Align­ment tech­nol­ogy to cre­ate AGI that sub­scribe to their val­ues?

  May I join this diaspora dissent community lol

• Ryze 20 Feb 2023 8:40 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Why should eth­i­cal anti-re­al­ists do ethics?

  Great post. I think the money pump argument still works to some extent because: In some remote possible worlds accepting the repugnant conclusion (or not) costs huge utility while inconsistency costs infinite utility because you get pumped and pumped again. In the real world it won’t cost much but accepting the repugnant conclusion won’t either, because you probably don’t get to make such population choices. Thus the only remaining downside is making yourself uncomfortable, but how uncomfortable really? If you’re really that uncomfortable (to be considered a big utility loss) then you probably shouldn’t think about it even if you’re a moral realist. Maybe it isn’t a special problem for anti realist after all?

• Ryze 13 Feb 2023 8:45 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: tobycrisford’s comment on: What is so wrong with the “dog­matic” solu­tion to reck­less­ness?

  Make sense!

• Ryze 12 Feb 2023 10:16 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: What is so wrong with the “dog­matic” solu­tion to reck­less­ness?

  The dogmatic solution has its charm, but it’s incompatible with a minimal scepticism.

  The idea is that there’s always a possibility everything you see is unreal because some powerful demons or deities will it so. Therefore, we have a reason not to give any statement 100% (or 0) credence just in case.