If Yudkowsky really thought unfriendly AI was an existential threat to humanity, it would be worth solving even if it meant less time to write speculative fiction

u/stairway-to-kevin 36 points at 1553968382.000000

If she wants to save lives so much why won’t she end people’s life to save their lives?

permalink

u/giziti 34 points at 1553970620.000000

This is why these chuds think politics is the mind-killer: they are completely incapable of grasping anything more complicated than these dumbass zingers from their armchair.

permalink

u/goodbetterbestbested 55 points at 1553971345.000000

There’s such a basic failure in logic here that I have to point it out. Clearly, AOC is saying that economic injustice perpetuates the environmental issue. So saying “it would be worth solving even if the solution increased economic inequality” is a non-sequitur.

She believes that economic injustice exacerbates the environmental issue, so this isn’t an argument against her position at all. Her position is specifically contrary to the hypothetical. Proposing that “if the exact opposite of her argument were true, then she would be wrong” isn’t an argument, it’s a tautology.

permalink

u/giziti 25 points at 1553974284.000000

sorry this sounds like politics so we cannot talk about it your mind is dead.

permalink

u/mirh 1 points at 1553994503.000000

Economic injustice doesn't actually tell a-thing about the environment to be honest. Rich people certainly pollute more per capita, but to quote the ancient wisdom (was it Churchill?) whether the two turkeys there are, are all mine or evenly split.. they are still two turkeys? **Consumerism** if any may be the concept that she could have entailed. And, well, that's of course closely related to capitalism. Gg to the great thinker for having "understood" the message, but wanting the flame. And gg to Yud, that imo is just detached from practicality and was baited by the lOgIcAl idiosyncrasy.

permalink

u/messybitchwholoves 9 points at 1554058566.000000

Her argument is that voters have to feel economically secure or they won't support the policies needed to mitigate climate change. If you raise gas taxes by a $1 (or whatever) without doing anything to help people, it's going to backfire and you won't solve the problem.

permalink

u/mirh -1 points at 1554068984.000000

A carbon tax should be proportional to the damage the underlying petrol does, period. There's no excuse that could lessen this. I mean, the very same poor people in the future certainly wouldn't want to hear that there's no money for extreme weather compensations. Then, of course you can still be pissed in the present, and I understand what she's eventually saying... But if one's really *anal* about the wording, or he has a very low fantasy, it follows you are baffled. Of course, just like , measures are going to affect more the lower classes.. but that happens with every other direct taxation, there's nothing special here. And you can't really say that the "imbalance" is why nobody's doing a thing (in fact, I would argue this is kind of buying the republican rhetoric of environmental action being at fault with the economy). > If you raise gas taxes by a $1 (or whatever) without doing anything to help people, it's going to backfire and you won't solve the problem. I could tell ya, the french went apeshit for something along these lines - while in italy (which regardless of how you look at it, certainly isn't richer) everybody is living without bating an eye, and with even higher customs, since almost decades.

permalink

u/messybitchwholoves 8 points at 1554070526.000000

It's not about how much people are affected or what's fair. It's a political question about how the US can reach emissions without rust belt voters handing the government over to climate change denialists or people who don't care. This is one of the central axes of American politics and Miller and Yud's inability to understand the context is pure, distilled, Scott Alexander grade idiocy.

permalink

u/mirh -2 points at 1554074727.000000

> without rust belt voters handing the government over to climate change denialists or people who don't care. I don't know, the post seems way more directly linking inequality and climate change action than that. Besides, I mean, if you really want to assume rust belt voters as perfect, self-interested and all.. For the love of god, then even 2 times WW2 mobilization would still probably leave lower incomes in a fairer (and better) situation than under whatever the fuck republicans are doing. Of course, again, the secret's all in the highlights of the narrative you push to people.

permalink

u/G0ldunDrak0n 3 points at 1554127552.000000

> the french went apeshit for something along these lines Could people please stop delegitimizing the French protest movements by using this type of language? It doesn't support your argument, it just shows you don't know a lot about France.

permalink

u/mirh -1 points at 1554133947.000000

I know the protests eventually extended to include just about everything that could or could not be wrong in the country, but I don't think there's much to argue about what sparked it. And I don't believe "apeshit" is that overly harsh word considering some of the happenings.

permalink

u/noactuallyitspoptart 8 points at 1554023452.000000

This sounds like a solid analysis of capitalism

permalink

u/rnykal 2 points at 1554263259.000000

I think people being massively empowered to make decisions for a thousand other people while being sheltered from the consequences at least contributes to global warming. As in, I'd think a private company's CEO would be more likely to make the decision pollute a town's drinking water for a bit more profit than the people living in that town would.

permalink

u/mirh 0 points at 1554328837.000000

> I think people being massively empowered to make decisions for a thousand other people while being sheltered from the consequences Yes, but that's not inequality. For all intents and purposes you are in effect arguing against their **common cause** (capitalism? greed? consumerism?).. and expecting people to, like, walk the reasoning backwards and then forward again. Now, AOC message's not *that* bad, but for this one I am not blaming logic nazis for jumping at her. Except those that manages to add BS on top of it, that is ofc.

permalink

u/rnykal 2 points at 1554332601.000000

If some people having the social power to make huge decisions for thousands of other people who are relatively disenfranchised isn't social inequality i don't know what is.

permalink

u/mirh 1 points at 1554367330.000000

Yeah, like if.. there didn't exist an entity above others where everybody has all an equal voting power or something... And you are really overconvoluting the reasoning then now. Let alone we were talking about *economic* inequality. Which I guess like you could blame for creating this "social" inequality, but we end up with the same kind of roundabout backwards argument I was talking about.

permalink

u/rnykal 2 points at 1554403893.000000

>an entity above others where everybody has all an equal voting power or something... if you're naïve enough to believe that, sure. It's not even true on paper, with the electoral college, gerrymandering, etc. Anyway, all I'm saying is that it might be self-evident to *you* that letting etremely powerful individuals profit from the destruction of the environment and outsource the consequences has nothing to do with climate change, but that doesn't make it an objective fact. I think if there was more economic justice, the only people able to profit from environmental destruction would be the same people who had to deal with the fall out.

permalink

u/mirh 1 points at 1554417533.000000

> It's not even true on paper, with the electoral college, gerrymandering, etc. \**Sigh*\* .. Look, I'm the [first](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/apspbu/obama_warned_us_about_the_supreme_court_we_have/egb72zx/?context=1) to bring up this thing. That the USA is de facto ***not*** a democracy (btw, electoral college is really the least of the problems) **But** for all intents and purposes of our argument about "societal choices responsibility", I thought we could agree that whatever the skewing of the big players is, it is not some 1 to 1000. Whether your income is 1B or 1K, your vote is still worth *approximately* one (well, residency aside I mean, but that can be seen as broadly random). Then, I guess to the local level things start to become shittier and shittier and muddier, yes. But if you have god damn ended up electing trump, that's a tree, not the forest. > letting etremely powerful individuals profit from the destruction of the environment and outsource the consequences has nothing to do with climate change And that has fucking nothing to do again directly with inequality? And it doesn't even make sense considering you are already entailing this people had already got rich before trashing at the environment? Why are you pointing out this, as if it was some equivalent of that thing about being "more likely to disregard" you mentioned before? > I think if there was more economic justice, the only people able to profit from environmental destruction would be the same people who had to deal with the fall out. There is a limit to how much single individual can meaningfully "pollute" (whatever that means, and especially if the point is CO2), in both senses. Now, if you want to keep this about "personal carelessness" I'm fine. But if you want to bring in companies too (which are no consumer, if I can explain), I don't even know what's your coherent point. You could even probably somewhat lower economic inequality in the short term by laxening emissions standards, with this token.

permalink

u/rnykal 2 points at 1554419047.000000

i'll try to make my point as simple as possible. In capitalism, companies and utilities are owned by individuals or shareholders, and usually directed by CEOs. [100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change). Therefore, I believe it can justifiably be said that the practice of letting companies and utilities be owned by individuals or shareholders and directed by CEOs (i.e. capitalism) is pretty well linked to climate change. Further supporting this is the fact that climate change really started to take off at the same time as Reaganite/Thatcherite neoliberalism. "Economic justice" is a pretty vague word, probably used to encapsulate many complicated ideas in a character limit, but it generally involves making workplaces more democratic. It is my opinion that companies would be less likely to pollute chasing profit margins if it was the people working in the company, living in the town, making the decisions, rather than CEOs or shareholders. Maybe you disagree. That's cool. But it's not some obvious truth imo, it's a matter of opinion.

permalink

u/heterozygous_ -4 points at 1554045315.000000

I'm not really sure what AOC means in context, possible the yud is talking past her. You do sometimes see people talking about how it's unfair for the west to ask emerging nations to curtail their economic growth for the environment after personally benefiting, and the fact that emissions-based taxes tend to be regressive.

permalink

u/IsThisSatireOrNot 27 points at 1553968915.000000

Yudkowsky probably wishes he was half as effective as AOC.

permalink

u/giziti 8 points at 1554005197.000000

All the right wingers and libertarians do. And messianic misogynists.

permalink

u/YrPalBeefsquatch 25 points at 1553980854.000000

When I talk about rationalists not treating lefty thought with a tenth of the charity they do genuinely fascist thought, this is exactly what I’m talking about. The idea that capitalism and climate change are inextricably linked isn’t some wild-ass idea that’s just inexplicable, it’s a body of thought with evidence and arguments and shit that, even if one ends up disagreeing, one would engage with. Spending even 5 fucking minutes googling “ecosocialism” would be a start. But goddamn rationalists don’t have even the token self-awareness or good faith or charity or whatever to do that.

permalink

u/titotal 22 points at 1553987521.000000

Somehow these people have a forcefield around them that prevents them from considering that maybe, just maybe, some problems are political. The literal only way to deal with global warming it to have massive public support for dealing with global warming, which is not going to happen if your “solution” involves fucking over the working class.

permalink

u/titotal 18 points at 1553993614.000000

"The yellow vests in France are the perfect example of what happens when you don't address economic & social justice in the same sweep as climate policy" -AOC yep, just a dumbass who refuses to bit bullets like the true rationalists

permalink

u/palind_romor_dnilap 35 points at 1553970511.000000

“Why aren’t any rationalists advocating for blowing up Google/Amazon/Facebook/OpenAI/etc ML labs and executing their engineers? Could it be that they don’t actually think unfriendly AI is an existential risk, hmmm?”

permalink

u/Rholles 19 points at 1553973460.000000

Gwern [did consider this](https://www.gwern.net/Slowing-Moores-Law#state-actors-why-not-terrorism) but concluded that unless you have NATO scale military capability your best case scenario is knocking out a power grid a large chip fab is on, and delaying Moore's Law by a couple months, which would work only once.

permalink

u/Soyweiser 18 points at 1553987760.000000

Hey at least gwern is taking the risk seriously and not writing fanfiction. I wonder on how many watchlists gwern now is.

permalink

u/Analemma_ 20 points at 1554000801.000000

No joke, probably several. I remember he once asked on Twitter if anyone was willing to buy chemicals and ship them to him, because all the major scientific chemical supply companies have blacklisted him. I think it’s a safe bet that when you go on such a list they also forward your details to the feds.

permalink

u/IsThisSatireOrNot 8 points at 1554004079.000000

...Just for that one essay? Or does he have a history of questionable behavior (excluding, of course, 'This Waifu Does Not Exist')?

permalink

u/Analemma_ 11 points at 1554004458.000000

He has a bunch of writing about chemical experimentation (see [here](https://www.gwern.net/tags/nootropics) and [here](https://www.gwern.net/tags/experiments) ), and there’s probably even more he hasn’t written about or only talked about on LW/Reddit/etc. I assume these companies watch for suspicious buying habits and that his set off all kinds of red flags.

permalink

u/gwern 3 points at 1554134607.000000

> I remember he once asked on Twitter if anyone was willing to buy chemicals and ship them to him, because all the major scientific chemical supply companies have blacklisted him. Nothing so dramatic. The problem there is simply that all the big suppliers operate on *whitelists*. Unless you have a corporation number or address which passes a very cursory check, they won't ship to you; I don't, so they didn't. (I'm sure they have blacklists in addition, but that's the major mechanism.) I'd still like to try out cotinine as a kinder gentler alternative stimulant to nicotine, but not badly enough to go to the hassle of setting up an adequate front like an LLC as other people tell me is necessary (which is why I was hoping someone would do me a favor). It's crazy that cotinine's so hard to get when it's literally a major metabolite of nicotine & probably safer too, but oh well. What actually earned me government entanglements like my FBI visits was my work documenting the DNMs, not any drug use or discussion of terrorism.

permalink

u/Rholles 1 points at 1554307647.000000

Have you written anything on what the contact with the FBI was like (if you're allowed to)? I'm really curious how that went down, if they had to assign a specific kind of case officer, how familiar they were with you, etc.

permalink

u/stairway-to-kevin 12 points at 1553977445.000000

R A T I O N A L A T I O N A L

permalink

u/123abc4 17 points at 1553977013.000000

God I hate Geoffrey Miller so much, he calls himself a scientist and look how he speaks

permalink

u/vsbobclear 8 points at 1554001902.000000

He seems like his breath would stink to high heaven

permalink

u/Soyweiser 14 points at 1553972909.000000

‘Gotcha’s’ are so stupid. So this is on brand for primalpoly.

permalink

u/barbadosslim 17 points at 1553970572.000000

capitalism causes global warming tho

permalink

u/vistandsforwaifu 21 points at 1553986093.000000

yeah but what if it didn't, I bet you'd look stupid then huh

permalink

u/PolyamorousNephandus 7 points at 1554043837.000000

Oh look a checkmate communists one-off from a dude in the Rationalsphere so amazing so profound wow let’s all suck his dick

^Lesswrong, probably

permalink

u/jwoodward48r 2 points at 1554180843.000000

Has Yudkowsky ever said “we haven’t really solved AI risk until we’ve written futuristic tales about a world where rape is legal”?

(ambiguous signals intensify)

permalink