Yudkowsky-rationalists routinely fail to examine the conflict theoretic / zero sum implications of treating differential tech progress as the only important good and end up with perverse implications like "maybe nuclear war is good" become a conflict theorist instead
-
-
let me try to unpack this: "if I say things like "deadly catastrophes are good because they forestall UFAI", I'm providing verbal ammunition to people who are careless about nuclear war and pandemics"?
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Not quite. The problem is that you're saying "catastrophes are good" instead of "I am at war with these processes while in favor of these processes, and the catastrophe is good because it hits the processes I am at war with more than my allies".
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @jessi_cata @s_r_constantin and
Perhaps altruists should engage in spite strategies sometimes, but they should be clear that they are engaging in spite instrumentally rather than just doing altruism directly.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
ah, so like "catastrophes are bad in absolute terms but relatively more bad for processes we're trying to stop, so we might support them"? this doesn't sound like it's a change in policy, just a different phrasing.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
It is indeed a difference in phrasing, but the different phrasing corresponds to a framework that makes conflict more clear, and is correspondingly less suicidal/self-defeating. Use of a different framework leads to different behaviors, where these behaviors include speech.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @jessi_cata @s_r_constantin and
It also makes explicit an implicit premise of Zack's OP: that there exist good processes (e.g. philosophical research) that are hurt by the plague less than bad processes.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
sounds like you DEFINITELY don't EVER want to talk about "hey this plague offers some opportunities" where people who aren't in your secret cult can hear you
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Well, there's potential benefit from - if you're clear and specific enough about what the opportunities are - becoming an identifiable ally to others with the same enemies.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @ben_r_hoffman @s_r_constantin and
Cf. Jonathan Monroe's comment pointing out an important intersection between "woke" and "ultra-libertarian" here for an example of natural allies that haven't managed to find each other yet:http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/can-crimes-be-discussed-literally/#comment-227023 …
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
I've been thinking that for years, and I didn't come up with it on my own. C4SS has been correct-but-uncool for as long as I was reading politics.
-
-
Replying to @s_r_constantin @ben_r_hoffman and
read
@rechelon for someone in that intersection0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.