Oh, it is probably my mistake XD I'm also not native. I meant increase, not that it is the maximum it could be, sorry.
About Tesla, do you think it had any influence on China betting hard for EVs?
About SpaceX, do you think it makes a big difference to be 'space-ready' a couple of decades earlier or later?
Sure, we don't know exactly how good EVs are for fighting climate change, but the current view is that they are needed in the context in which we are because they seem better mostly than the other alternatives. [Incidentally, since some time I tend to think that he's probably been vastly less net-good in the past than I previously thought. Not really because of him, but because Chinese companies are beating everyone, including Tesla, with their EVs (and I don't think he's had any influence in China betting hard for EVs, though I might be wrong here); so if Tesla would have not existed, the adoption of EVs would just have been only delayed for few years (and mostly only in the west). So his net-positive contribution -for me and now- seems much lower than it seemed before.] But this, of course, is not what I am asking for.
Maybe Hitler, by sheer chance, killed someone who had been much worse than him. But this would not make him be net-positive in the sense of this question (eg. we'd had other ways to deal with that person -even if the odds that we did are very small).
But probably I have not been clear enough, sure.
Sure, but one can assess it at any point. I'm not asking about whether he will end up being net-positive or net-negative overall in the long run.
I'd agree. But he certainly does not seem to even be trying anymore to have positive impact on solving alignment, no?
Hi, thanks.
I don't see how what you say contradicts that the reach of his actions and opinions have increased. Did you maybe quote the wrong sentence?
For me the conversation in the example sounds artificial, it is obvious that the friend did not get what you mean. If I'd had such conversation, I'd have added something like: "If I go, sure I can pick you up. But I'm not sure when I'll go" (or "I'm not sure if I'd go at all or at what time" if you really are not sure)
I am but puzzle about how your post could wreck someone
when someone does not have the capabilities to face those fears. Even just meditating is dangerous for some people because it makes them face something they are not equipped to face. In order to learn, one must face challenges with the right level of difficulty for them at that point in time. Too easy and there's no learning; too difficult and it is a wall instead of a challenge. If the challenges are psychological or similar, this wall may be something that hurts, only hurts, with no -or minimal- gains.
Thanks. So would you say I am right with the concern about the paper? Or is it fog only for other reasons? [I haven't yet read the link, so I don't yet know what exactly fog in this context means]
? I don't know Rosencranz.
I'm asking you because you say "Is it the case that the tech would exist without him? I think that's pretty unclear" and this, in my view, depends a lot on the answers to those questions.
The opposite, it is good. But if Musk did not have any influence on it, this diminishes Musk's positive impact in this field, making his impact less positive.