@magic9mushroom's banner p

magic9mushroom

If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me

2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 10 11:26:14 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 1103

magic9mushroom

If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me

2 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 10 11:26:14 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1103

Verified Email

I recall the response always being the Yudkowsky followers bowing out of the conversation. Explicitly saying they're bowing out. Which is a thought defeating cliche to prevent themselves from considering contrary ideas.

I would appreciate receipts on this; there are alternate explanations which I'd need to rule out to believe your conclusion.

(AIUI, Yudkowsky is not a big fan of the "it's not about convincing your debating partner; it's about convincing the audience" school of thought so popular among SJ. Hence, if someone demonstrates that he is not amenable to reasonable discussion, there is no point continuing the conversation - and politeness dictates that one note this rather than simply ghosting. I can't distinguish between these hypotheses from the information you've given.)

Stuff like that is why they had to speak in code avoiding the word "cult" to describe themselves. Asking users to please stop writing the word "cult" or search engines will associate them with cults.

I mean, the Ratsphere as a whole (as opposed to Leverage and the Zizians, and maybe the Vassarites) doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria for a destructive cult. Arguably it's a benign cult, but lol who cares.

AIUI the situation with nuclear is basically "the technology exists to do it cheaply and safely, but there's too much regulatory red tape"; hence, most of the uncertainty is political.

He didn't mention the word "nanobot" in the second linked article either. Probably has something to do with the fact that when people hear "nanobot" they think a mini-robot made out of metal, and that's not what he's talking about.

(I call the thing he's talking about "Life 2.0", and while I might not be quite as bullish on what can be wrung out of it, "kill the biosphere" with Life 2.0 is a DEFINITE YES because I know the skeleton of one method.)

superintelligence ≈ omnipotence for all intents and purposes

Your "for all intents and purposes" is doing a lot of work. "Omnipotent", to me, means God/simulators; someone who has write access to reality. You can be very powerful without having that.