Home
Technology
Gaming
Entertainment
World & Business
Science
Sports
AI

World & Business

Home
Technology
Gaming
Entertainment
World & Business
Science
Sports
AI

A user jokes about an “EA polycule” takeover of ASI · Digg

A user jokes about an “EA polycule” takeover of ASI

“It's the EA polycule taking over ASI,” a user quips while quoting another post.

26 Sources, 25d ago, first seen 25d ago

TLDR

A user’s quote-post offers a joking characterization of ASI: “It's the EA polycule taking over ASI.”

Combined views

364.8K

26 Sources, first seen 25d ago

5.3K likes

Combined views

364.8K

26 Sources, first seen 25d ago

5.3K likes

478 comments

807 saves

737 reposts

478 comments

807 saves

737 reposts

Sentiment

Positive9.2%90.8%Negative

Summary

Negative replies accused Effective Altruism of insularity, power grabs, and poor self-control in AI circles, while a few praised its openness to criticism and charitable giving pledges.

Based on 200 sentiment-bearing replies from 120 accounts across 5 conversations.

Sentiment

Positive9.2%90.8%Negative

Summary

Negative replies accused Effective Altruism of insularity, power grabs, and poor self-control in AI circles, while a few praised its openness to criticism and charitable giving pledges.

Based on 200 sentiment-bearing replies from 120 accounts across 5 conversations.

Today's Rank

—

Not ranked yet

Today's Rank

—

Not ranked yet

26 Sources

@beffjezosIt's the EA polycule taking over ASI25d

@TaylorLorenzAre there any people who are concerned about AI existential risk who are *not* connected in any way with EA? I am genuinely curious bc so far it seems like something that has solely emerged from that religion/belief system. Who are the non EA-related ppl engaged on this issue?23d

@SarahShoker@TaylorLorenz This depends on how you define existential risk imo. eg. The communities engaged with autonomous weapons and military AI are overwhelmingly not EA. There is also (minor) overlap in the non-proliferation WMD community. EA defines ‘existential risk’ pretty narrowly, unfortunately.23d

@tenobrus"why are all the people who care about or know anything about ai safety EAs and rationalists?? where are the truly independent thinkers from diverse intellectual backgrounds???" dawg they all spent the last decade denying even basic capabilities trajectories and calling risk sci-fi. u can hardly blame a subculture for being a monoculture in a field when it's literally the only group of people who took that field seriously and tried to build it out, all while screaming at the top of their lungs about it and begging others to pay attention. so yeah pile on in here, time to pay attention, time to upskill, get those communist and MAGA safety thinktanks running. but don't pretend this is some kind of conspiracy, and don't pretend you can just show up to the party years late and have any real idea what you're talking about right off the bat.23d

@DKokotajloRT @tenobrus: "why are all the people who care about or know anything about ai safety EAs and rationalists?? where are the truly independen…23d

@gleech@TaylorLorenz Alan Turing (1951), Norbert Wiener (1960), Irving Good (1965), Vernor Vinge (1993), Bill Joy (2000), Stephen Hawking (2014), Geoffrey Hinton (2023), Yoshua Bengio (2023), Eric Schmidt (2023), Daniel Kahneman (2024), Daniel Dennett (2024), Ray Kurzweil, Steve Bannon, Ross Douthat22d

@S_OhEigeartaighBasically none of the 'big' names - Bengio, Hinton et al - emerged from it, though they've obviously engaged since, in the way that one engages with other colleagues working on /worried about similar issues. Bengio took a long time to be convinced that such concerns were worth taking seriously, he writes about it in his blog.22d

@dhadfieldmenellRT @gleech: @TaylorLorenz Alan Turing (1951), Norbert Wiener (1960), Irving Good (1965), Vernor Vinge (1993), Bill Joy (2000), Stephen Hawk…22d

@mmitchell_aiThe reason I got into AI ethics was because I foresaw how these systems would be incorporated into missile launch systems. @haydenfield first asked me about this and reported the start of it in the first paragraph here: https://www.techbrew.com/stories/2021/03/29/one-biggest-advancements-ai-also-sparked-fierce-debate-heres And I gave the full story at my @IASEAIorg keynote last year, here (story starts around 5:20): https://youtu.be/HSrbRabn7X4?t=319&si=V-vqKh4h2O9ckLao22d

@QiaochuYuani have many disagreements with effective altruism, even when i was a rationalist i never thought of myself as an EA, but the recent spate of anti-EA nonsense is so blatantly obviously in bad faith i am compelled to do a "nobody gets to pick on my cousin except me" here EAs have consistently been among the most kind, thoughtful, level-headed, and principled people i've ever met. along with rationalists they are the only subcultures i've ever encountered who have a strong norm that they can in theory be persuaded to change their minds on consequential topics by good arguments. you should seriously consider the possibility that, for example, the reason tech billionaire dustin moskovitz funds one of the largest EA organizations is that EAs presented him what he saw as the best argument for what he should do with his billions, which is to find a bunch of thoughtful people to think seriously about how to best spend them to most improve people's lives globally. that is extremely laudable and pretty much the best case! many people are, i think, confused and perhaps frightened about why this relatively small insular ideological group suddenly appears to have such weirdly large amounts of power, especially power wrt AI. you should seriously consider the possibility that it's in part it's because they spent the last 15 years successfully convincing a bunch of powerful people to listen to them using Facts and Logic, and/or that they themselves decided to acquire power using Facts and Logic (such as arguments that AI would be a big deal and thus one should start an AI company, invest in an AI company, or join an AI company). there is a fairly public history here which it is trivial for you to get an LLM to explain to you which you could learn! EAs are (mostly, with of course infamous exceptions) trying to do good things for good reasons and are responsive to thoughtful serious critique. they want thoughtful serious critique! they will listen to thoughtful serious critique! you do not have to call them names and schoolyard bully them!22d

26 Sources

@beffjezosIt's the EA polycule taking over ASI25d

@TaylorLorenzAre there any people who are concerned about AI existential risk who are *not* connected in any way with EA? I am genuinely curious bc so far it seems like something that has solely emerged from that religion/belief system. Who are the non EA-related ppl engaged on this issue?23d

@SarahShoker@TaylorLorenz This depends on how you define existential risk imo. eg. The communities engaged with autonomous weapons and military AI are overwhelmingly not EA. There is also (minor) overlap in the non-proliferation WMD community. EA defines ‘existential risk’ pretty narrowly, unfortunately.23d

@tenobrus"why are all the people who care about or know anything about ai safety EAs and rationalists?? where are the truly independent thinkers from diverse intellectual backgrounds???" dawg they all spent the last decade denying even basic capabilities trajectories and calling risk sci-fi. u can hardly blame a subculture for being a monoculture in a field when it's literally the only group of people who took that field seriously and tried to build it out, all while screaming at the top of their lungs about it and begging others to pay attention. so yeah pile on in here, time to pay attention, time to upskill, get those communist and MAGA safety thinktanks running. but don't pretend this is some kind of conspiracy, and don't pretend you can just show up to the party years late and have any real idea what you're talking about right off the bat.23d

@DKokotajloRT @tenobrus: "why are all the people who care about or know anything about ai safety EAs and rationalists?? where are the truly independen…23d

@gleech@TaylorLorenz Alan Turing (1951), Norbert Wiener (1960), Irving Good (1965), Vernor Vinge (1993), Bill Joy (2000), Stephen Hawking (2014), Geoffrey Hinton (2023), Yoshua Bengio (2023), Eric Schmidt (2023), Daniel Kahneman (2024), Daniel Dennett (2024), Ray Kurzweil, Steve Bannon, Ross Douthat22d

@S_OhEigeartaighBasically none of the 'big' names - Bengio, Hinton et al - emerged from it, though they've obviously engaged since, in the way that one engages with other colleagues working on /worried about similar issues. Bengio took a long time to be convinced that such concerns were worth taking seriously, he writes about it in his blog.22d

@dhadfieldmenellRT @gleech: @TaylorLorenz Alan Turing (1951), Norbert Wiener (1960), Irving Good (1965), Vernor Vinge (1993), Bill Joy (2000), Stephen Hawk…22d

@mmitchell_aiThe reason I got into AI ethics was because I foresaw how these systems would be incorporated into missile launch systems. @haydenfield first asked me about this and reported the start of it in the first paragraph here: https://www.techbrew.com/stories/2021/03/29/one-biggest-advancements-ai-also-sparked-fierce-debate-heres And I gave the full story at my @IASEAIorg keynote last year, here (story starts around 5:20): https://youtu.be/HSrbRabn7X4?t=319&si=V-vqKh4h2O9ckLao22d

@QiaochuYuani have many disagreements with effective altruism, even when i was a rationalist i never thought of myself as an EA, but the recent spate of anti-EA nonsense is so blatantly obviously in bad faith i am compelled to do a "nobody gets to pick on my cousin except me" here EAs have consistently been among the most kind, thoughtful, level-headed, and principled people i've ever met. along with rationalists they are the only subcultures i've ever encountered who have a strong norm that they can in theory be persuaded to change their minds on consequential topics by good arguments. you should seriously consider the possibility that, for example, the reason tech billionaire dustin moskovitz funds one of the largest EA organizations is that EAs presented him what he saw as the best argument for what he should do with his billions, which is to find a bunch of thoughtful people to think seriously about how to best spend them to most improve people's lives globally. that is extremely laudable and pretty much the best case! many people are, i think, confused and perhaps frightened about why this relatively small insular ideological group suddenly appears to have such weirdly large amounts of power, especially power wrt AI. you should seriously consider the possibility that it's in part it's because they spent the last 15 years successfully convincing a bunch of powerful people to listen to them using Facts and Logic, and/or that they themselves decided to acquire power using Facts and Logic (such as arguments that AI would be a big deal and thus one should start an AI company, invest in an AI company, or join an AI company). there is a fairly public history here which it is trivial for you to get an LLM to explain to you which you could learn! EAs are (mostly, with of course infamous exceptions) trying to do good things for good reasons and are responsive to thoughtful serious critique. they want thoughtful serious critique! they will listen to thoughtful serious critique! you do not have to call them names and schoolyard bully them!22d