From: Metaqualia (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jun 03 2004 - 03:20:00 MDT
> some people. Saving the world is way too much.
There is some truth to that, reminds me of a quote posted on Elizier's
website about Eric Drexler admonishing people to "keep the bullshit level
If you can really save the world, great, but the worst thing you can do is
say it as plainly as that. I assure you nobody is going to wave their hands
in the air praising allah for your birth, mostly they will see you as an
impostor, a mad person, and try to ruin things for you.
-- As for this whole business of whether everyone thinks that Elizier's arrogance is right/wrong/acceptable, I remember someone wanting to charge money for idle speculation. At least speculation may give rise to some new idea; talking about people's attitudes really gets you nowhere. But since everyone's having fun for free I thought I may jump in, additionally you can argue that if Elizier really has a chance to save the world then his public image is an asset that we should protect so let it be known that my opinion on arrogance is ...... (Know that I have nothing against Elizier in particular but I am only describing facets of a particular human heuristic, of which I too am sometimes a victim) (1) arrogance is weakness. It arises from you not having enough internal emotional energy or inspiration or things to do, to refrain from gaining a free dopaminic ride by exalting yourself to the world. It arises from you not having enough internal emotional energy or inspiration or things to do, to overcome the distressed caused to you by others not understanding things in your particular field of expertise and to prevent letting your genes redirect your efforts from "create cooperation and understanding" to "enhance your social status among the other 199 members of the tribe". Someone with low internal energy WILL inexorably fail in other areas that demand discipline. Giving in to arrogance is illogical as it allows disruption of the goal system. (2) Elizier is very smart there is no doubt about that. I think Elizier can go to a local bar and be the brightest guys as can lots of the people on this list (but the bar people wouldn't notice, and we could still learn a thing or two from them about the "normal world"). However: being arrogant about one's brightness with sl4 members who are not only all extremely bright but also should be thinking about solving a common problem and cooperating, is futile, and can only bring about idle rethoric and IQ tournaments and take discussions from a rational level to a personal one. So Bayes should condemn display of the theory "I am smarter" as it has a very high likelihood of producing negative utility; he also should condemn the misguided application of the theory on a very different data set than that from which it was generalized. (3) Someone who thinks every day about AI, especially about seed AI and recursively improving intelligence, should be extremely humble about the potential of one single human no matter if that human owned half of the world or invented calculus. Blind faith in a human brain's cognitive abilities is illogical and misplaced. (4) Additionally, our IQ level is determined by upbringing and genetics, factors over which we have no control or merit. The predisposition to any voluntary self-study or self-improvement is also a direct effect of these external factors. Therefore bragging about one's IQ is bragging about a natural science fact such as "the sun exists". Bayes condemns it as it is an illogical request to be rewarded for something over which one has no responsibility. mq
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:47 MDT