astralcodexten.com
This made me reflect that I hadn't actually thought critically about the phrase (at least, commensurate to how often it's used). For fun, if you think the purpose of a system is what it does, write what you think that means, before reading Scott's critique, then write if you've updated your opinion. For example:
(Spoilers go between two sets of "||")
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This is similar to what Scott said in one of his last paragraphs in that essay, and I just haven't seen it. In practice, what I observe as being the upshot of this phrase is that these "ideological opponents and their institutions" are, despite all their honest good intentions, behaving in a way that causes harm just as much as if they were involved in a dark conspiracy to do evil. Which is to say, having honest good intentions isn't a good defense if it isn't paired with an honest good understanding of systems, since the consequences of doing things with good intentions is often the same as doing things with evil intentions if one lacks such understanding.
This is also functionally different from claiming a dark evil conspiracy, because a system that accomplishes evil through conscious intent will be responsive to different inputs than one that does so as a side-effect despite having food conscious intent.
More options
Context Copy link