There is an Avaaz signature campaign to "Establish National Licensing systems for AGI before it is fully achieved" (started by the director of the Millennium Project, Jerome Glenn) you may want to sign.
I'm not sure how fitting such a petition is for LW, that's why I put it here. If somebody more involved (forum admins, maybe?) thinks it is worth for it to have a real post, please do it.
Agree.
I consider myself a rationalist, but if I were going to recommend this post to anyone, it would be to show how dangerous fanaticism/sectarianism is --and this is not only about Ziz's and Co. actions, also many comments here are kind of scary. It shows how single-thinking and going to the extreme about one's convictions, even if one tries very hard to be correct, often goes extremely badly. We humans are dumb, so just don't take anything too literally or too much to its extreme, take yourself and your thoughts with a bit of salt, be nuanced (at least nuancedly nuanced).
No wonder some people hate or are afraid of rationalist when they see stuff like this... and when they see that this is resurfaced after several years with no apparent reason.
? 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.
Is China doing well in the EV space a bad thing?
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.
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?
I think one of the main variables is the country where one is. You account for this more locally with "Be in a place where this sort of thing is reasonably common" but I don't think anyone in most (some? at least spain and germany) European countries worries about the police when deciding if letting kids do stuff alone or not.