The author has also written a short horror story about simulated intelligence which I highly recommend: https://qntm.org/mmacevedo
replies(9):
Is that correct? I thought the Roko's Basilisk post was just seen as really stupid. Agreed that "Lena" is a great, chilling story though.
He knows that can't possibly work, right? Implicitly it assumes perfect invulnerability to any method of coercion, exploitation, subversion, or suffering that can be invented by an intelligence sufficiently superhuman to have escaped its natal light cone.
There may exist forms of life in this universe for which such an assumption is safe. Humanity circa 2024 seems most unlikely to be among them.
Though in this case, in his defense, average people will never hear about Roko's Basilisk.
On reflection, I could've inferred that from his crowd's need for a concept of "typical mind fallacy." I suppose I hadn't thought it all the way through.
I'm in a weird spot on this, I think. I can follow most of the reasoning behind LW/EA/generally "Yudkowskyish" analysis and conclusions, but rarely find anything in them which I feel requires taking very seriously, due both to weak postulates too strongly favored, and to how those folks can't go to the corner store without building a moon rocket first.
I recognize the evident delight in complexity for its own sake, and I do share it. But I also recognize it as something I grew far enough out of to recognize when it's inapplicable and (mostly!) avoid indulging it then.
The thought can feel somewhat strange, because how I see those folks now palpably has much in common with how I myself was often seen in childhood, as the bright nerd I then was. (Both words were often used, not always with unequivocal approbation.) Given a different upbringing I might be solidly in the same cohort, if about as mediocre there as here. But from what I've seen of the results, there seems no substantive reason to regret the difference in outcome.