PDV

If you're worried about an oncoming problem and discussing it with others to plan, your ideal interlocutor, generally, is someone who agrees with you about the danger. More often, though, you'll be discussing it with people who disagree, at least in part. The question that inspired this post was "Why are some forms of disagreement so much more frustrating than others?" Why do some disagreements feel like talking to a brick wall, while others are far more productive? My answer is that some interlocutors are 'blind goaltenders'. They not only disagree about the importance of your problem, they don't seem to understand what it is you're worried about. For example, take AI Safety. I believe that it's a serious problem, most likely the Most Important Problem, and likely to be catastrophic. I can argue about it with someone who's read a fair chunk of LessWrong or Bostrom, and they may disagree, but they will understand. Their disagreement will probably have gears. This argument may not be productive, but it won't be frustrating. Or I could talk to someone who doesn't understand the complexity of value thesis or orthogonality thesis. Their position may have plenty of nuances, but they are missing a key concept about our disagreement. This argument may be just as civil - or, given my friends in the rationalsphere, more civil - but it will be much more frustrating, because they are a blind goaltender with respect to AI safety. If I'm trying to convince them, for example, not to support an effort to create an AI via a massive RL model trained on a whole datacenter, they may take into account specific criticisms, but will not be blocking the thing I care about. They can't see the problem I'm worried about, and so they'll be about as effective in forestalling it as a blind goalie. Things this does not mean Blind goaltenders are not always wrong. Lifelong atheists are often blind goaltenders with respect to questions of sin, faith, or other religiously-motivated behavior.