Scott has posted a discussion of the conversation about eugenics, framed as an actual conversation. I found it thought-provoking, as he made better arguments for both sides than I am used to seeing from either.
A: Given that mild, consensual forms of eugenics have historically led to extreme, horrifying versions, we have reason to believe the topic is a slippery slope which ought to be avoided outright.
B: This proves too much, as there are plenty of other ideas with similar history but much higher body counts. Thus eugenics ought to be carefully investigated rather than tabooed outright.
In the footnotes, he also presents C: Ehrlich did nothing wrong, and sometimes expected-value calculations don’t plan for the long tails. Democracy, as a form of distributed consent, is our best way to square this circle. This (correctly, IMO) leaves Scott uncomfortable. I appreciate that he included it.
I was not at all familiar with Ehrlich’s work, or with the quintessentially-McNamara history of Indian aid programs. Both add some valuable context for the argument. Oh, and I guess Scott talks about HBD a little bit; that’ll be catnip for this community, but it’s really secondary to the main thrust. Seriously, just read the article for a better version than anything I can write.
Discuss.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Neither of us like Yudkowsky but that's a grossly unfair and unreasonable article. I think the median motte-user would read it and be swayed in the opposite direction. How is it any better than what LeCun puts on twitter? We both agree those are weak arguments that don't engage with the substance of Yud's stuff. Yud's position makes much more sense than Ehrlich's. It's still wrong but for much better reasons.
Some casual holes I can pick:
Food shortages are not intelligent and cannot plot against us
Yudkowsky's argument never relied on there being no diminishing returns on intelligence ever, only that returns on intelligence were very great
We have not been dealing with AI for millennia like we have with food shortages
Frankly I'd prefer a chad-hominem argument like 'we shouldn't take advice from a man who can't even lose weight - fix your waistline before saving the world'.
So you are saying that if Brad Pitt and other handsome and good looking Hollywood celebrities told you that AI will kill you soon unless you give up your GPU, you will salute, say "Yes, sir!" and immediately smash your high capacity assault computer with hammer?
You do not have to worry, it could happen soon.
No - why would anyone trust an actor, someone who is paid to speak the words of others? I'd trust a healthy philosopher over an obese one.
Edit: Still better would be more substantive counterarguments, such as those Daseindustries has made earlier.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link