rationalism AI cultist creeps

So here's an effective altruist arguing that longtermism is bs, basically saying your little toy model of the future is useless: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/RRyHcupuDafFNXt6p/longtermism-and-computational-complexity

Someone makes a brilliant point in the comments: "Loved this post - reminds me a lot of intractability critiques of central economic planning, except now applied to consequentialism writ large."

Given that most EAs are kinda libertarian-leaning (hate central planning when applied to real-world economies) this is ... devastating.

xps yeah I didn't realise how much the official EA organisation had been taken over:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/08/15/the-reluctant-prophet-of-effective-altruism

xp that is an exceedingly rigorous formulation of what is a very obvious and common sense objection. (hence far more effective for the intended audience.)

I had something more like "minimize human domination over other humans" in mind but this works too.

Right. Am I perhaps fundamentally misunderstanding rationalism? (Genuine question, I come to these kinds of threads to learn — I may not be totally out of line but I am mostly out my depth.)

My suggestion was focused on the process while yours seems more goals-oriented. Which is the problem that others seem to point out with absolute rationalism, that it has no inherent ethical framework?

Well mine is process-oriented too I think ... one of the reasons to oppose human domination over other humans is everyone has a limited view of the world, everyone sees based on their own experiences and interests, so process-wise you should avoid having people make decisions for other people, regardless of how well-meaning they might be.

I may not be totally out of line but I am mostly out my depth.

lol trust me I have a very shallow understanding of this stuff as well. My indignation, however, is bottomless.

Which is the problem that others seem to point out with absolute rationalism, that it has no inherent ethical framework?

Utilitarianism, right? (which is related to but I think not the same as consequentialism, but I don't understand the difference)

Consequentialism just says that the morality of an action resides in its consequences, as opposed to how well it follows some (e.g. god given) rules or whether it's inherently virtuous (whatever that means).Utilitarianism specifies what the consequences should be.

Which is partly why utilitarianism is so tempting - consequentialism itself seems almost transparently true, and then well what could be wrong with maximising happiness?

Consequentialism just says that the morality of an action resides in its consequences

Which is just a fancier way of saying "the end justifies the means". But your chosen formulation of it immediately suggested the thought that consequences are open-ended, extending into all futurity, and therefore are impossible to measure.

consequentialism itself seems almost transparently true, and then well what could be wrong with maximising happiness?

my uneducated answer here is that if you've arrived at a situation where other people are pawns in your game - even if you mean them well - something has gone wrong upstream.

obviously there are situations where you need to guess what is best for someone else, but we should try to minimize them. it shouldn't be the paradigm example of moral reasoning.

btw, effective altruism has its own ilx thread.

art is a waste of time; reducing suffering is all that matters

xp
yes, which is why the answer to the Enlightenment: good/bad? question differs depending where in the world you ask it

well what could be wrong with maximising happiness?

This was rhetorical but yes treating people as pawns is one major problem, as is the fact that happiness, or whatever your unit of utility is, is not the kind of thing that you can do calculations with. One hundred and one people who are all one percent happy is not at all a better state of affairs than one person who is one hundred percent happy. (Not that there isn't a place for e.g. quality adjusted life years calculations in certain institutional settings.)

Which is just a fancier way of saying "the end justifies the means". But your chosen formulation of it immediately suggested the thought that consequences are open-ended, extending into all futurity, and therefore are impossible to measure

I think "the end justifies the means" is a bit more slippery - it's often used to weigh one set of consequences more heavily than another, e.g. bombing hiroshima to end the war. And, well we're talking about human actions and human consequences, I think its fair to restrcit it to humanly measurable ones.

Even human consequences extend indefinitely. Identifying an end point is an arbitrary imposition upon a ceaseless flow, the rough equivalent of ending a story with "and they all lived happily ever after".

so do you never consider the consequences of your actions or do you have trouble getting up in the morning?

I am not engaged in a program of identifying a universal moral framework based upon the consequences of my actions when I get up in the morning, which certainly makes it easier to choose what to wear.

touche!

This is the ideal utilitarian form. You may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like pic.twitter.com/uHvCp2Cq7y

— MHR (@SpacedOutMatt) September 16, 2022

incredible

Read this a few days ago. As AI burns through staggering amounts of money with no reasonable use case so far, all your fave fascist tech moguls are gonna hitch themselves to a government gravy train under a Trump administration (gift link): https://wapo.st/3wllikQ