The first step is to see a psychiatrist and take the medication they recommend. For me it was an immediate night-and-day difference. I don't know why the hell I wasted so much of my life before I finally went and got treatment. Don't repeat my mistake.
I actually tried running your essay through ChatGPT to make it more readable but it's way too long. Can you at least break it into non-redundant sections not more than 3000 words each? Then we can do the rest.
I second that. I actually tried to read your other posts because I was curious to find out why you are getting downvoted-- maybe I can learn something outside the LW party-line from you.
But unfortunately, you don't explain your position in clear, easy to understand terms so I'm going to have to put off sorting through your stuff until I have more time.
I meant prepping metaphorically, in the see of being willing to delve into the specifics of a scenario most other people would dismiss as unwinnable. The reason I posted this is that though it's obvious that the bunker approach isn't really the right one, I'm drawing a blank for what the right approach would even look like.
That being said, I figured into class of scenario might look identical to nuclear or biological war, only facilitated by AI. Are you saying scenarios where many but not all people die due to political/economic/environmental consequences of AI emergence are unlikely enough to disregard?
So let's talk about dystopias/wierdtopias. Do you see any categories into which these can be grouped? The question then becomes, who will lose the most and who will lose the least under various types of scenarios.
I'm sad to see him go. I don't know enough about LWs history and have too little experience with forum moderation to agree or disagree with your decision. Though LW had been around for a very long time without imploding so that's evidence you guys know what you're doing.
Please don't take down his post though. I believe somewhere in there is a good faith opinion at odds with my own. I want to read and understand it. Just not ready for this much reading tonight.
I wish I could write so prolifically! Or maybe it's a curse rather than a blessing because then it becomes an obstacle to people understanding your point of view.
Are there any links we can read about non-appeasing de-escalation strategies?
Either theoretical ones or ones that have been tried in the past are fine.
There have been "Nuclear first-use and threats or advocacy thereof" and those are easy to condemn. But as far as I know they are coming unilaterally from the Russian side and already being widely condemned by those not on the Russian side. But it sounds like you are looking for some broader consensus to condemn escalation on both sides.
Unfortunately neither this post nor the open letter you linked give any specifics about what other behaviours you are asking us to condemn. I'm reluctant to risk endorsing a false-equivalence argument by signing a blank check.
Is blowing up the Kerch bridge escalatory? Is Arestovich trolling the occupiers to sap their morale and bolster the morale of the defenders escalatory? I'm not qualified to determine whether the tactical or psychological benefit is justified by the escalatory risk of these sorts of actions and in the Kerch example, we don't even know if it was done by the Ukrainian government, provocateurs, or sympathizers acting independently.
I agree that it's not a binary choice between appeasement and escalation, and I am very curious about the non-appeasing de-escalation strategies you allude to. That's what we should be brainstorming and what you should lead with in your letter for it to be convincing.
Definition please.