wiggertopia

I’m sorry guys, but this stochastic terrorism shit is retarded. Y’all are attacking these higher, discursive moral issues, but the root disagreement is the same epistemic schism as always: 1. If the StopAI folks are correct about x-risk, then their rhetoric is clearly justified 2. If they are wrong, then they are naught but a dangerous, fear-mongering doomcult That’s it. Simple as. And if a set of tactics is justified when the beliefs are correct and unjustified when they are false, then your objection is to the beliefs, not the tactics. Does this mean that violence would also be justified, since killing AI researchers might be “correct” if p(doom) = 0.99? No! There obviously do exist objectively wrong tactics that are unjustified regardless of beliefs. Murdering people in cold blood is, in general, not good. You do not want to live in a world where people kill each other based on speculative ideological beliefs about policy outcomes, so you should not kill others based on your speculative ideological beliefs about policy outcomes. Fucking duh. But if you do believe that some policy poses an existential risk to humanity, then it seems pretty reasonable for you to say so! And yes, you should actually condemn acts of violence to ensure that your words do not manifest bloodshed. Issues of high emotional salience require rhetorical norms of immense sobriety and caution. Saying “this is horribly dangerous, but don’t kill anybody over this” is not dog-whistling or stochastic terrorism; rather it is precisely the sort of tactical norms we should encourage and respect around issues of existential importance. Bear in mind, I do disagree with the StopAI folks; I don’t think p(doom) = 0.99 and I do think that their beliefs are potentially dangerous. But that is an objection to their beliefs, not their tactics. With a few notable exceptions, I think they are generally quite good at talking about existential risk without encouraging violence. If your beliefs and rhetoric pose a predictable risk of others taking up violence in your name, then you have a moral obligation to do what you can to minimize such risks. But you do not have an obligation to silence. To suggest otherwise is fundamentally un-American.

An 18-year-old Chick-fil-A employee found $9,333 in cash in a restroom during his shift and returned it to its owner, later receiving a $500 reward for his honesty.

An 18-year-old Chick-fil-A employee found $9,333 in cash in a restroom during his shift and returned it to its owner, later receiving a $500 reward for his honesty.

You cannot write a random number and expect people to understand