Comments on: Open Thread http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/07/open-thread-23.html Overcoming Bias is economist Robin Hanson’s blog, on honesty, signaling, disagreement, forecasting, and the far future. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:21:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Tim Tyler http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/07/open-thread-23.html#comment-418361 Tim Tyler Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:29:08 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/07/open-thread-23.html#comment-418361 Topic for election time? Should most rational agents bother voting in national elections, given some typical costs and benefits of doing so? Are the voters typically behaving more rationally than the abstainers, or the other way around? Is such voting behaviour better explained as a social signalling mechanism than by its effect on who is in power? Topic for election time? Should most rational agents bother voting in national elections, given some typical costs and benefits of doing so? Are the voters typically behaving more rationally than the abstainers, or the other way around? Is such voting behaviour better explained as a social signalling mechanism than by its effect on who is in power?

]]> By: Hopefully Anonymous http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/07/open-thread-23.html#comment-418360 Hopefully Anonymous Tue, 24 Jul 2007 04:00:58 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/07/open-thread-23.html#comment-418360 The statement the above post refers to: http://www.singinst.org/overview/whyworktowardthesingularity The statement the above post refers to:

http://www.singinst.org/overview/whyworktowardthesingularity

]]> By: Hopefully Anonymous http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/07/open-thread-23.html#comment-418359 Hopefully Anonymous Tue, 24 Jul 2007 04:00:27 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/07/open-thread-23.html#comment-418359 This statement seems to me to be extraordinarily (relative to the capabilities of the presumed authors) ungrounded in empiricism. All sorts of ideas in it are framed as declarative fact, when I think they should be more accurately presented as conjecture or aspirations of unknown certainty. I'm very interested in the Singularity Institute people at overcomingbias addressing these concerns directly. This statement seems to me to be extraordinarily (relative to the capabilities of the presumed authors) ungrounded in empiricism. All sorts of ideas in it are framed as declarative fact, when I think they should be more accurately presented as conjecture or aspirations of unknown certainty. I’m very interested in the Singularity Institute people at overcomingbias addressing these concerns directly.

]]> By: Hopefully Anonymous http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/07/open-thread-23.html#comment-418358 Hopefully Anonymous Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:06:56 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/07/open-thread-23.html#comment-418358 Maybe the Brazilian Appeals Court was right? http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070718/D8QEV3703.html I'd like to lobby for a new open thread to be created weekly. Maybe the Brazilian Appeals Court was right?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070718/D8QEV3703.html

I’d like to lobby for a new open thread to be created weekly.

]]> By: Hopefully Anonymous http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/07/open-thread-23.html#comment-418357 Hopefully Anonymous Sun, 08 Jul 2007 16:24:06 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/07/open-thread-23.html#comment-418357 Nick and Eliezer, are you still Singularitarians? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularitarian The idea that people are actively working to bring about self-improving, smarter-than-humanity intelligences scares me, because I think you're blind to your own ruthless selfishness (not meant pejoratively) and thus think that by creating something smarter than us (and therefore you) it can also attempt to be kind to us, as you perceive yourself to be attempting to be kind to people generally. In contrast, I don't see either of you as Gandhi-types (here I'm referring to the archetypal elements of Gandhi's self-cultivated image, not his actual life-in-practice). It may be a hubris-derived bias that makes you think otherwise. I don't see any singulatarians performing and attempt to engage in minimal pleasurable resource use to maximize their ability to save currently existing lives. Instead I see thousands or millions of people dying daily, permanently, while leading singularians enjoy a variety of life's simple pleasures. My prescriptive solution: more selfishness, fear, and paranoia on your end. Be thankful that you're apparently (big caveat) one of the smartest entities in apparent reality and there's apparently nothing of much greater intelligence seeking resources in your shared environment. Rather than consciously try to bring about a singularity, I think we should race against a naturally occuring singularity to understand the various existential threats to us and to minimize them. At the same time, I think we should try to realistically assess more mundane existential threats and threats to our personal persistence, and try to minimize these too with what seems to be the best proportionate energy and effort. But the rationalizations of why people are trying to inentionally create a self-improving intelligence smarter than humanity seem to me to be very, very weak, and could be unecessarily catastrophic to our existence. Nick and Eliezer, are you still Singularitarians?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularitarian

The idea that people are actively working to bring about self-improving, smarter-than-humanity intelligences scares me, because I think you’re blind to your own ruthless selfishness (not meant pejoratively) and thus think that by creating something smarter than us (and therefore you) it can also attempt to be kind to us, as you perceive yourself to be attempting to be kind to people generally.

In contrast, I don’t see either of you as Gandhi-types (here I’m referring to the archetypal elements of Gandhi’s self-cultivated image, not his actual life-in-practice). It may be a hubris-derived bias that makes you think otherwise. I don’t see any singulatarians performing and attempt to engage in minimal pleasurable resource use to maximize their ability to save currently existing lives. Instead I see thousands or millions of people dying daily, permanently, while leading singularians enjoy a variety of life’s simple pleasures.

My prescriptive solution: more selfishness, fear, and paranoia on your end. Be thankful that you’re apparently (big caveat) one of the smartest entities in apparent reality and there’s apparently nothing of much greater intelligence seeking resources in your shared environment. Rather than consciously try to bring about a singularity, I think we should race against a naturally occuring singularity to understand the various existential threats to us and to minimize them.

At the same time, I think we should try to realistically assess more mundane existential threats and threats to our personal persistence, and try to minimize these too with what seems to be the best proportionate energy and effort.

But the rationalizations of why people are trying to inentionally create a self-improving intelligence smarter than humanity seem to me to be very, very weak, and could be unecessarily catastrophic to our existence.

]]> By: Hopefully Anonymous http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/07/open-thread-23.html#comment-418356 Hopefully Anonymous Sat, 07 Jul 2007 23:47:36 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/07/open-thread-23.html#comment-418356 This makes notions of representative democracy, at least in the USA, seem a bit silly: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/07/one-problem-wit.html The link details evidence that most Americans have very low knowledge levels of the basics of American government. This makes notions of representative democracy, at least in the USA, seem a bit silly:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/07/one-problem-wit.html

The link details evidence that most Americans have very low knowledge levels of the basics of American government.

]]> By: michael vassar http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/07/open-thread-23.html#comment-418355 michael vassar Fri, 06 Jul 2007 01:39:34 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/07/open-thread-23.html#comment-418355 Mark surely means one of Nick Bostrom's papers. He's the top name on the list of contributors. Mark surely means one of Nick Bostrom’s papers. He’s the top name on the list of contributors.

]]> By: Anna http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/07/open-thread-23.html#comment-418354 Anna Thu, 05 Jul 2007 04:18:56 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/07/open-thread-23.html#comment-418354 I've thought about the Jesus Camp video you presented to me. I am curious, why those particular examples to get your point accross regarding the post? Just Curious Anna I’ve thought about the Jesus Camp video you presented to me. I am curious, why those particular examples to get your point accross regarding the post?

Just Curious
Anna

]]> By: Hopefully Anonymous http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/07/open-thread-23.html#comment-418353 Hopefully Anonymous Wed, 04 Jul 2007 07:46:23 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/07/open-thread-23.html#comment-418353 Mark, alarmingly high? I don't see how that probability can be calculated as any higher than the existential threat of quantum flux or other simple, random end to our apparent reality, but I'd be interested in seeing the paper. Mark, alarmingly high? I don’t see how that probability can be calculated as any higher than the existential threat of quantum flux or other simple, random end to our apparent reality, but I’d be interested in seeing the paper.

]]> By: Mark http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/07/open-thread-23.html#comment-418352 Mark Wed, 04 Jul 2007 04:51:10 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/07/open-thread-23.html#comment-418352 I now wish I could pass the link to you of a paper written by an Oxford professor of philosophy who created probabilities for events likelto precipitate the end of humanity, eg nucleur armageddon, grey gloop etc. The probability that the more complex society presses end-game on our particular simulation is alarmingly high. I now wish I could pass the link to you of a paper written by an Oxford professor of philosophy who created probabilities for events likelto precipitate the end of humanity, eg nucleur armageddon, grey gloop etc. The probability that the more complex society presses end-game on our particular simulation is alarmingly high.

]]>