I'm skeptical of anyone who claims to have completely eliminated all emotional attachment to all of their important decision-relevant beliefs.
How about someone who never had all this overwrought (as it seems to me) emoting in the first place? I sense typical-minding here.
I also believe that done right, there is no tradeoff between kindness and correction, and that in a serious conversation, to think in terms of kindness (or its opposite) is already to go wrong.
You were likening AI capabilities to those of a human. In reply I placed them far below human capabilities. Now you are imagining the AIs as actually being humans on whom gross brain damage has been inflicted. This is irrelevant. The AIs that we have are not greater minds cut down, they are primitive things built up. They have never been any better than they currently are. Do we look at an ant with sorrow, that it is so much less than a human?
I'm not sure if you got my allusion to Rule 34, but this is Rule 34. I don't know how common or niche the robotisation fantasy is, but it exists.
Let's say a person had been (sorry for this topic, it's disturbing, but I feel obliged to mention it explicitly) 'brainwashed' so that they were completely subservient in their intentions to someone else. Suppose that, aside from this, they have an extraordinary working memory, volume of crystallized intelligence and capacity for analogical reasoning, but are in other respects severely mentally handicapped, being unable to remember what happened an hour ago. Would you really not want to help that person?
I would want to help that person, if there is anything left of them. But this is a tendentious example. The AIs we have are not deliberately handicapped human beings, any more than a garden shed is a cut down skyscraper.
BTW, the magic "brainwashing" and "supposing" are, to put this as tastefully as possible, examples of Rule 34.
a very strong signal of "this stuff is just awful; anyone who learns much about it much will agree; join in on contempt for this stuff; this way people will know to avoid this stuff".
When Eliezer says that something is just awful, I interpret that to mean "this is just awful." Period. I'm sure that from long experience he has observed that in fact very few people who learn much about it will agree, because they are not able to follow his reasoning, let alone derive his conclusions for themselves. I also doubt he would find it useful to have a crowd of potplants dogpiling on the target in imitation of his excoriation but without his understanding.
For that matter, why is Fred passing up the chance to improve his business? If he's on the ball, he should be doing that to forestall a Tom coming in. You snooze, you lose, Econ 101 for agenty people.
When Tom opens his shop, Tom and Fred have each other as competitors, so they both need to up their game to stay competitive. This is non-zero-sum value that competition provides. Without Tom, Fred with his local monopoly can be lazy. Econ 101.
Seems like a coffee snob sort of thing to think
The real coffee snob thing would be to mark Claude down for thinking that instant coffee is coffee, and yourself for not correcting its egregious mistake. :)
4How would continuity (of time?) affect things?
I'm mainly interested not in who best writes like lsusr, but in knowing which of the entries were intended as serious postings in their own right. I hope for all of them, but the goal might squeeze out other considerations.