3.9 KiB
Robin Hanson - Overcoming Bias Interview at Oxford
-
Author: u/adam_ford *
-
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tcYQE1B588&index=4&list=PL-7qI6NZpO3vb3sOa7n-s78fXLozZR95u
-
Score: 4
-
Created: 2014-07-13T00:20:30
Post:
Comments:
u/None [+3] (12 hours later)
If you're gonna report stuff, message the mods with why. If you're about to complain that this sub is for fiction, well, ok, but there's a balance between having new rationalfic chapters to talk about, and having content on the subreddit when we don't.
And if you're going to complain that Robin Hanson is both epistemically and morally evil, yes, I agree, but we don't actually have a sub-wide rule against evil.
u/None [+1] (21 hours later)
[deleted]
u/None [+2] (a day later)
u/ZankerH [+1] Remove Kebab (3 days later)
I don't understand why you consider that evil. Pretty much everything Hanson has to say other than his insistence on over-analysing the (in my opinion) unlikely slow-takeoff scenario strikes me as a sensible prediction given the assumptions, no matter how evil you consider the fact that the man has replaced his sense of morality with an economic calculation.
u/None [+3] (3 days later)
the man has replaced his sense of morality with an economic calculation.
You said it. I'm just condemning it.
u/ZankerH [+1] Remove Kebab (3 days later)
Well, that's my point - he's not planning policy, he's making predictions. I prefer to address predictions in terms of their likelihood as opposed to how evil they look to me.
u/VorpalAuroch [+3] Life before Death (4 days later)
The problem is not that he makes the prediction that this is the likely outcome. The problem is that after predicting 'This is likely to happen if nothing is changed substantially' he proceeds to "And that is a good thing," when anyone who hasn't replaced their sense of morality with a sense of economic efficiency can tell you that it's a very bad thing.
our robot descendants might actually be forced to slave near day and night, not to feed kids but just to pay for their body rent, their feed-stocks, their net connection, etc. Even so they’d be mostly happy.
Anyone who honestly believes this has a seriously flawed understanding of happiness. This kind of thinking isn't recognizably human, let alone moral.
u/None [+1] (5 days later)
This kind of thinking isn't recognizably human, let alone moral.
I am pretty sure Robin Hanson is human. A human is thinking this thing that is not recognizably human. This should tell us something about our sense of human possibility.
u/ZankerH [-1] Remove Kebab (4 days later)
That's not him saying it's a good thing, though - that's him saying it's possible for an em to live what we'd consider a luxurious life even at near-subsistence income, and even if it weren't it's possible to modify an em to be happy while living in conditions we'd consider deplorable.
I've seriously yet to spot Hanson outright declaring his em scenario to be morally good or preferable. He's not judging, he's predicting.
u/VorpalAuroch [+2] Life before Death (4 days later)
I've seriously yet to spot Hanson outright declaring his em scenario to be morally good or preferable.
Yes, I think per-capita income must fall to near subsistence levels, but not only isn’t this repugnant – it is good!
So when he says 'it is good!', he doesn't actually mean it's good?