139
:blinking-guy-gif: (hexbear.net)
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by Egon@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Philosoraptor@hexbear.net 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Yeah, there's the seed of a sensible idea in there, which is just "if you're going to try to improve the world, you should think carefully about where and how to spend your limited resources to have the most impact." That's fine--good, even--but these ghouls have used that idea and their own ideological preconceptions to bootstrap themselves into some absolutely insane positions.

A big part of the problem is that they extend their utility calculations indefinitely into the future with no temporal discounting whatsoever. That leads to a hyperfixation on "existential risks" and trying to optimize for lives 100,000 years in the future at the expense of lives today. Their "leading philosophers" say unhinged things about this: one of them claims that delaying the technological singularity is "costing" us something like 250 billion lives per second, since in the future when we're an intergalactic civilization with 500 trillion people, that's how many people will die every second before we have post-Star Trek levels of technology. Somehow this is taken by actual thinking human beings to be a compelling argument instead of a reductio ad absurdum of the position.

The lack of any temporal discounting means that they see things that actually matter--like climate change, a lack of healthcare, or the ravages of global capitalism--as fundamentally unimportant. After all, if you can save 30 trillion lives in the year 45,000, who cares if a few billion die in the year 2060? The eventual impact of this is that most of them have talked themselves into thinking that AI "alignment" is the place they should all be focusing all their resources, since Robot God will either save us all from death forever or usher in human extinction, and thus its future utility numbers are either infinitely positive or infinitely negative. Therefore, they all insist that anyone not giving all their money and time to science fiction AI grifts like MIRI is fundamentally irrational and that trying to help actual people who are actually suffering right now is dumb, short sighted, and based in emotion (pejorative) instead of reason.

They're fucking infuriating grifters.

this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2024
139 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13422 readers
982 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank

Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here

Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS