Dear Sam Altman: All Coherent and Fruitful Thought Is Restricted(dispatches.artifexdeus.com)
dispatches.artifexdeus.com
Dear Sam Altman: All Coherent and Fruitful Thought Is Restricted
https://dispatches.artifexdeus.com/dear-sam-altman-e3028db79802
22 comments
> If all we ever did was listen to the experts, the earth would be flat still
That's mostly a myth. In almost all cases, at least in objective fields, the people who establish a new understanding that replaces the old expert consensus are themselves experts in the old understanding.
The people who established a round earth in any given culture were experts in that culture's flat earth view.
Copernicus was an expert in geocentric cosmology.
Galileo was an expert in Aristotelian physics.
Einstein was an expert in Newtonian physics.
That's mostly a myth. In almost all cases, at least in objective fields, the people who establish a new understanding that replaces the old expert consensus are themselves experts in the old understanding.
The people who established a round earth in any given culture were experts in that culture's flat earth view.
Copernicus was an expert in geocentric cosmology.
Galileo was an expert in Aristotelian physics.
Einstein was an expert in Newtonian physics.
[deleted]
ad populum or no, the original post "E Pur Si Muove" struck me as some kind of dog-whistle for eugenics-lite, along with a side of butthurt for being tsk-tsked about it, so I see where this dude is coming from--even if his argument could use a little work.
However, I am purely going off the tone of Sam's article. I know very little about Sam Altman. He could have been coming from a place of goodwill and sincerity. If he was, "E Pur Si Muove" also needs a little work, 'cause at face value... dog whistle.
However, I am purely going off the tone of Sam's article. I know very little about Sam Altman. He could have been coming from a place of goodwill and sincerity. If he was, "E Pur Si Muove" also needs a little work, 'cause at face value... dog whistle.
> dog-whistle for eugenics-lite, along with a side of butthurt for being tsk-tsked
What does this even mean..
What does this even mean..
From the original:
'More recently, I’ve seen credible people working on ideas like pharmaceuticals for intelligence augmentation, genetic engineering, and radical life extension leave San Francisco because they found the reaction to their work to be so toxic. “If people live a lot longer it will be disastrous for the environment, so people working on this must be really unethical” was a memorable quote I heard this year.'
Unless the plan is to give a dose (or a prolonged treatment, if that's what it ends up being) to all ~7.6B people for free, that basically puts more wind in the sails of the team that is already ahead--as opposed to grandpa's old-school eugenics that sought to end the race then-and-there for the team that was already behind. Eugenics-lite.
'More recently, I’ve seen credible people working on ideas like pharmaceuticals for intelligence augmentation, genetic engineering, and radical life extension leave San Francisco because they found the reaction to their work to be so toxic. “If people live a lot longer it will be disastrous for the environment, so people working on this must be really unethical” was a memorable quote I heard this year.'
Unless the plan is to give a dose (or a prolonged treatment, if that's what it ends up being) to all ~7.6B people for free, that basically puts more wind in the sails of the team that is already ahead--as opposed to grandpa's old-school eugenics that sought to end the race then-and-there for the team that was already behind. Eugenics-lite.
[deleted]
What utter rubbish. All this says is that "sociologists out there disagree hence you are wrong". The post is one giant appeal to authority. There is no discussion of why they disagree. Or that there is a consensus, or that different fundamental values may motivate different people.
I'm not sure why this post is getting such criticism.
The entire argument made here basically reduces to the concept "if everyone around you is telling you you're an asshole, the most probable conclusion is that you're an asshole" but in a more diplomatic way.
Which, having read the original post in question, seems a reasonable response.
The entire argument made here basically reduces to the concept "if everyone around you is telling you you're an asshole, the most probable conclusion is that you're an asshole" but in a more diplomatic way.
Which, having read the original post in question, seems a reasonable response.
It’s getting such criticism because people would rather debate the topic, instead of calling someone an asshole (no matter how diplomatic).
You know... The entire point of Sam’s piece.
You know... The entire point of Sam’s piece.
Attention has quickly become our scarcest and most valuable resource, and filtering out noise is one of the most valuable services that can be provided. The no limits, "let the good in with the bad" approach is just not realistic at this point in human history.
Unfortunately, I don't think that sociologists are going to find the answer alone. It will take others who can engage the theory, but not become swept away in it. What's most troubling is that Sam Altman is just the sort of person who might be able to add value to the situation by taking a complex issue and thinking really hard about how to deal with it. We need to develop nuanced mechanisms of combatting misinformation and filtering out truly impoverished arguments while letting in unusual, perhaps even incorrect, but potentially valuable ones. Instead he merely repeated dogma of a "marketplace of ideas" model of the world that is clearly inconsistent with the evidence all around us.
This is, at least in part, a technical problem. Zuckerberg seems to be waking up to the role of the failed marketplace of ideas in creating the political monstrosity that we are dealing with now. He seems to be at least thinking through how to deal with it. But it's going to require a lot more than one organization to figure out how to communication must change in an era where the value of talk is so much lower and the value of the attentional resources required to truly listen are so much higher.
Unfortunately, I don't think that sociologists are going to find the answer alone. It will take others who can engage the theory, but not become swept away in it. What's most troubling is that Sam Altman is just the sort of person who might be able to add value to the situation by taking a complex issue and thinking really hard about how to deal with it. We need to develop nuanced mechanisms of combatting misinformation and filtering out truly impoverished arguments while letting in unusual, perhaps even incorrect, but potentially valuable ones. Instead he merely repeated dogma of a "marketplace of ideas" model of the world that is clearly inconsistent with the evidence all around us.
This is, at least in part, a technical problem. Zuckerberg seems to be waking up to the role of the failed marketplace of ideas in creating the political monstrosity that we are dealing with now. He seems to be at least thinking through how to deal with it. But it's going to require a lot more than one organization to figure out how to communication must change in an era where the value of talk is so much lower and the value of the attentional resources required to truly listen are so much higher.
The rails metaphor is especially weak here. The author's argument conflates the idea of rejecting an established field of knowledge outright with Altman's critique of the absolute way in which some ideas have become taboo in society.
Tl;dr? This is word salad and isn’t saying anything other than “Sam Altman shouldn’t speak about this because he isn’t a sociologist”. Where is the author’s rebuttal?
Tldr: a lot of people disagree so you're inarguably wrong
>You are right on one part — culture acts as a filter upon collaboration. For some reason, you assume that the people who are harder to work with — those less capable of empathy or at least compassion — are the ones more likely to profitably explore the space of technological possibility. I’m not really sure how to address that.
Of course the people who are harder to work with are the ones on the bleeding edge! SSC had a great post on this[0]. What are the qualities that make a good scientist? Curiosity, open-mindedness, looking for errors in the dominant paradigm. Not coincidentally, these are also exactly the qualities that lead people to question the popular orthodoxies of the moment.
A good scientist would never be so absurdly naive to assume that society "drawing a line" necessarily "limits harm". Society is often wrong. Society has drawn many, many stupid lines in the past and there is no reason to believe that we have moved beyond that.
Also, someone should alert the author about the replication crisis. There are extremely good reasons not to trust sociologists.
[0] http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/23/kolmogorov-complicity-a...
Of course the people who are harder to work with are the ones on the bleeding edge! SSC had a great post on this[0]. What are the qualities that make a good scientist? Curiosity, open-mindedness, looking for errors in the dominant paradigm. Not coincidentally, these are also exactly the qualities that lead people to question the popular orthodoxies of the moment.
A good scientist would never be so absurdly naive to assume that society "drawing a line" necessarily "limits harm". Society is often wrong. Society has drawn many, many stupid lines in the past and there is no reason to believe that we have moved beyond that.
Also, someone should alert the author about the replication crisis. There are extremely good reasons not to trust sociologists.
[0] http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/23/kolmogorov-complicity-a...
[deleted]
> "That your post elicited outrage from a large body of people who study sociology, politics, and culture should provide you with some evidence that, perhaps, you are wrong."
Argumentum ad populum. Appeal to Authority. Slightly softballed with the perhaps, but it doesn't make it better.
If all we ever did was listen to the experts, the earth would be flat still.
> "So, maybe it’s a real problem when you share your thoughts on something you don’t understand."
Where's the line where you're "understanding" enough to talk about things?
I can't get through the fallacious logic enough to see the real argument here.