One possible reason not to call yourself by this label would be if you are not a utilitarian. I favor virtue ethics and strongly dislike utilitarianism so I would not use the label even though I am well aligned with most of the goals and approaches.
I'm sitting on the fence. I find both utilitarianism and virtue ethics questionable, the first because it's too narrow and the second because it's too abstract. It would be interesting to try and find a mid third way. As I said to John, I don't have a concept of "ethics" more precise than the nebulous concept that we should align with the will of the universe or something like that, for which we should first know more about what the will of the universe could be. My third way includes both a general principle of alignment with the will of the universe (virtue ethics) and practical compassion for the people alive here and now (utilitarianism).
"e/acc has no particular allegiance to the biological substrate for intelligence and life, in contrast to transhumanism." That's just wrong. Transhumanism takes no position on remaining biological vs. becoming postbiological. Funnily enough, the accusation is usually the opposite -- transhumanists are told that they despise their bodies and yearn to get rid of them. Neither of these views are correct.
Hi Max, I was also surprised by this passage. I guess Verdon hasn't been reading much about transhumanism beyond cryonics and biological life extension. He should, and I hope he will, read your writings on extropy and transhumanism, which could provide a solid philosophical foundation for e/acc. You two guys should discuss! How about we try and organize a discussion?
I agree with almost everything you said, and I too became a card-carrying extropian in the mid-1990s and until a few years ago I was proud to say I was still an extropian. But today I feel more comfortable saying I'm a believer in effective accelerationism, not because I believe AI poses no danger to the human race but because I believe the development of a superhuman AI is inevitable and the chances that the AI will not decide to exterminate us is greater if baby Mr. Jupiter Brain is developed by the US, Europe, Japan, Taiwan, or South Korea, than if it was developed by China, Russia, or North Korea. If given a choice between low chance and no chance I'll pick low chance every time.
John K Clark
I became a card-carrying extropian and I’ve called myself an extropian ever since
Hi John, my take on this point is similar to my take on space expansion. I would *like* it if the good guys are the first to develop superhuman AI and expand into space, but if the bad guys must be the first, so be it. The universe will provide and make sure things work out well.
It has always been clear to me that unless there was some physical reason that a super intelligent AI was impossible to make it was inevitable that somebody somewhere will build one, and events of the last year have increased my certainty that there was no such physical obstacle from 99% to 100%. So the real question an AI scientist should ask himself is not should I help build a super intelligence but should I wait for somebody more ethical than me to do so. I don't believe that the scientists in China or Russia or North Korea are more moral than the scientists working at OpenAI or Google or Anthropic. And I'm certain the universe will see to it that things work out, but I'm not certain it will work out to the advantage of human beings, however the probability is a little higher if the first superhuman AI is made by one of the good guys.
For similar reasons I think Oppenheimer was wrong in opposing the building of the H-bomb. After the war it was not known if it was even physically possible to build a thermonuclear bomb, and the answer to that question certainly seems to me like something that should be known if you're interested in national security. But Oppenheimer opposed even researching the possibility of such a thing. The US pretty much followed Oppenheimer's advice and did little thermonuclear research until the USSR exploded a fission bomb in 1949. After that the US started a huge H-bomb project and in 1951 the Teller–Ulam design was discovered making it clear it was not only possible but practical to make such a device and in 1952 they not only made an H-bomb they tested one. And this is where I think the US made a second mistake, they should not have tested it.
If the US had started the H-bomb program as soon as the war ended they could've probably built an H bomb in 1947 or 1948 before the USSR's fission bomb test. No nation could put H bombs into their weapons stockpile if they have not tested it and it would be impossible to test such a huge thing without the entire world becoming aware of it. So if 1948 the US had said that they had made an H-Bomb but would not test it unless some other nation tested one then,maybe Stalin would have decided not to test one either. Probably Stalin would have built and tested an H-bomb anyway but I think it would have been worth taking the chance.
> Why have you stopped saying you are an extropian?
Because I committed heresy and the Extropians excommunicated me, and because I don't want to be mistaken as a closet Trump supporter.
So the points you made about AI have nothing to do with not calling yourself an extropian? You seemed to say the opposite but then instead said it was due to "heresy" and "excommunication" -- I presume meaning from the extropians email list, which is not all of extropianism. I don't understand the "closet Trump supporter" comment.
I hope you didn't take my comments personally, I still trust and respect you, if I didn't I wouldn't be a paid up ALCOR member. The reason I'm now reluctant to call myself an Extropian has nothing to do with AI or any other future technology, it has to do with the willingness to put up with outrageous lies, treason, stupidity and fascism in the form of Donald Trump. Yes most (but not all) on the Extropian List said they voted for the Libertarian party candidate not Trump, but to my mind voting for such a nonentity is functionally equivalent to not voting at all, and they became incandescent with rage whenever I said anything negative about Donald Trump even though he's the most anti-libertarian anti-free market, anti-science president in American history. But nobody minded a bit if somebody said something bad about Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. That's what I meant by "closet Trump supporter".
By the way, I'm also reluctant to call myself a libertarian even though I'm just as libertarian (small l) now as I was when I joined the Extropian List in 1993, because the Libertarian Party has polluted that word so much I don't want to be confused with one of those clowns. Until about five years ago the free exchange of ideas and opinions was encouraged, however when the new anonymous moderator of the list took over that all changed. Since they kicked me off I wouldn't have thought Extropians would even want me to say that I was one of them, but then I was delighted to hear you say "the extropians email list is not all of extropianism". So maybe I'm still an Extropian after all.
Anyway, I still regard you as a friend, good thing too because, given the fact that we are both still ALCOR members, if we're both extraordinarily lucky we may end up knowing each other for a very long time.
<So the real question an AI scientist should ask himself is not should I help build a super intelligence but should I wait for somebody more ethical than me to do so...>
I don't have a concept of "ethics" more precise than the nebulous concept that we should align with the will of the universe or something like that, for which we should first know more about what the will of the universe could be.
< I don't believe that the scientists in China or Russia or North Korea are more moral than the scientists working at OpenAI or Google or Anthropic...>
Same as above for morality: I don't know what morality is. But from a more practical perspective, history shows that modern (or better pre-modern) Western culture, which has been based on competition, pluralism, freedom of thought and speech, freedom of scientific research, has produced better sci/tech faster than the centralized cultures of China or Russia or North Korea.
Which brings me to:
<Because I committed heresy and the Extropians excommunicated me, and because I don't want to be mistaken as a closet Trump supporter.>
So we extropians are Trump supporters? I didn't know that, but if so, then feel free to call me a Trump supporter!
Trump is far from being my ideal politician. But then very few politician are, and those few don't have a realistic chance to be elected to positions where they can make a difference.
In politics, one must think not only of how good a certain candidate or a certain policy is, but also of the alternatives on the table.
To me, Trump is a symptom. It is like part of the collective mind of America, perhaps the more perceptive part, has sensed that American culture (and Western culture at large) is slipping on a dangerous slope that could lead to abandoning the principles of competition, pluralism, freedom of thought and speech, and freedom of scientific research. This is where the ultra-PC "wokeness" of certain intolerant cultural and political actors leads. And that part of our collective mind has embraced Trump as the best way to fight back.
Of course there could be better ways to fight back, and of course a better candidate than Trump could emerge. But we must fight back in some or some other way.
I really enjoyed reading this past
Giulio is a clear and coherent thinker
Thank you Martine! Takes one to know one! 🙂
One possible reason not to call yourself by this label would be if you are not a utilitarian. I favor virtue ethics and strongly dislike utilitarianism so I would not use the label even though I am well aligned with most of the goals and approaches.
I'm sitting on the fence. I find both utilitarianism and virtue ethics questionable, the first because it's too narrow and the second because it's too abstract. It would be interesting to try and find a mid third way. As I said to John, I don't have a concept of "ethics" more precise than the nebulous concept that we should align with the will of the universe or something like that, for which we should first know more about what the will of the universe could be. My third way includes both a general principle of alignment with the will of the universe (virtue ethics) and practical compassion for the people alive here and now (utilitarianism).
"e/acc has no particular allegiance to the biological substrate for intelligence and life, in contrast to transhumanism." That's just wrong. Transhumanism takes no position on remaining biological vs. becoming postbiological. Funnily enough, the accusation is usually the opposite -- transhumanists are told that they despise their bodies and yearn to get rid of them. Neither of these views are correct.
Hi Max, I was also surprised by this passage. I guess Verdon hasn't been reading much about transhumanism beyond cryonics and biological life extension. He should, and I hope he will, read your writings on extropy and transhumanism, which could provide a solid philosophical foundation for e/acc. You two guys should discuss! How about we try and organize a discussion?
I agree with almost everything you said, and I too became a card-carrying extropian in the mid-1990s and until a few years ago I was proud to say I was still an extropian. But today I feel more comfortable saying I'm a believer in effective accelerationism, not because I believe AI poses no danger to the human race but because I believe the development of a superhuman AI is inevitable and the chances that the AI will not decide to exterminate us is greater if baby Mr. Jupiter Brain is developed by the US, Europe, Japan, Taiwan, or South Korea, than if it was developed by China, Russia, or North Korea. If given a choice between low chance and no chance I'll pick low chance every time.
John K Clark
I became a card-carrying extropian and I’ve called myself an extropian ever since
Hi John, my take on this point is similar to my take on space expansion. I would *like* it if the good guys are the first to develop superhuman AI and expand into space, but if the bad guys must be the first, so be it. The universe will provide and make sure things work out well.
Why have you stopped saying you are an extropian?
It has always been clear to me that unless there was some physical reason that a super intelligent AI was impossible to make it was inevitable that somebody somewhere will build one, and events of the last year have increased my certainty that there was no such physical obstacle from 99% to 100%. So the real question an AI scientist should ask himself is not should I help build a super intelligence but should I wait for somebody more ethical than me to do so. I don't believe that the scientists in China or Russia or North Korea are more moral than the scientists working at OpenAI or Google or Anthropic. And I'm certain the universe will see to it that things work out, but I'm not certain it will work out to the advantage of human beings, however the probability is a little higher if the first superhuman AI is made by one of the good guys.
For similar reasons I think Oppenheimer was wrong in opposing the building of the H-bomb. After the war it was not known if it was even physically possible to build a thermonuclear bomb, and the answer to that question certainly seems to me like something that should be known if you're interested in national security. But Oppenheimer opposed even researching the possibility of such a thing. The US pretty much followed Oppenheimer's advice and did little thermonuclear research until the USSR exploded a fission bomb in 1949. After that the US started a huge H-bomb project and in 1951 the Teller–Ulam design was discovered making it clear it was not only possible but practical to make such a device and in 1952 they not only made an H-bomb they tested one. And this is where I think the US made a second mistake, they should not have tested it.
If the US had started the H-bomb program as soon as the war ended they could've probably built an H bomb in 1947 or 1948 before the USSR's fission bomb test. No nation could put H bombs into their weapons stockpile if they have not tested it and it would be impossible to test such a huge thing without the entire world becoming aware of it. So if 1948 the US had said that they had made an H-Bomb but would not test it unless some other nation tested one then,maybe Stalin would have decided not to test one either. Probably Stalin would have built and tested an H-bomb anyway but I think it would have been worth taking the chance.
> Why have you stopped saying you are an extropian?
Because I committed heresy and the Extropians excommunicated me, and because I don't want to be mistaken as a closet Trump supporter.
John K Clark
So the points you made about AI have nothing to do with not calling yourself an extropian? You seemed to say the opposite but then instead said it was due to "heresy" and "excommunication" -- I presume meaning from the extropians email list, which is not all of extropianism. I don't understand the "closet Trump supporter" comment.
Hi Max
I hope you didn't take my comments personally, I still trust and respect you, if I didn't I wouldn't be a paid up ALCOR member. The reason I'm now reluctant to call myself an Extropian has nothing to do with AI or any other future technology, it has to do with the willingness to put up with outrageous lies, treason, stupidity and fascism in the form of Donald Trump. Yes most (but not all) on the Extropian List said they voted for the Libertarian party candidate not Trump, but to my mind voting for such a nonentity is functionally equivalent to not voting at all, and they became incandescent with rage whenever I said anything negative about Donald Trump even though he's the most anti-libertarian anti-free market, anti-science president in American history. But nobody minded a bit if somebody said something bad about Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. That's what I meant by "closet Trump supporter".
By the way, I'm also reluctant to call myself a libertarian even though I'm just as libertarian (small l) now as I was when I joined the Extropian List in 1993, because the Libertarian Party has polluted that word so much I don't want to be confused with one of those clowns. Until about five years ago the free exchange of ideas and opinions was encouraged, however when the new anonymous moderator of the list took over that all changed. Since they kicked me off I wouldn't have thought Extropians would even want me to say that I was one of them, but then I was delighted to hear you say "the extropians email list is not all of extropianism". So maybe I'm still an Extropian after all.
Anyway, I still regard you as a friend, good thing too because, given the fact that we are both still ALCOR members, if we're both extraordinarily lucky we may end up knowing each other for a very long time.
John K Clark, proud ALCOR member
Hi John,
<So the real question an AI scientist should ask himself is not should I help build a super intelligence but should I wait for somebody more ethical than me to do so...>
I don't have a concept of "ethics" more precise than the nebulous concept that we should align with the will of the universe or something like that, for which we should first know more about what the will of the universe could be.
< I don't believe that the scientists in China or Russia or North Korea are more moral than the scientists working at OpenAI or Google or Anthropic...>
Same as above for morality: I don't know what morality is. But from a more practical perspective, history shows that modern (or better pre-modern) Western culture, which has been based on competition, pluralism, freedom of thought and speech, freedom of scientific research, has produced better sci/tech faster than the centralized cultures of China or Russia or North Korea.
Which brings me to:
<Because I committed heresy and the Extropians excommunicated me, and because I don't want to be mistaken as a closet Trump supporter.>
So we extropians are Trump supporters? I didn't know that, but if so, then feel free to call me a Trump supporter!
Trump is far from being my ideal politician. But then very few politician are, and those few don't have a realistic chance to be elected to positions where they can make a difference.
In politics, one must think not only of how good a certain candidate or a certain policy is, but also of the alternatives on the table.
To me, Trump is a symptom. It is like part of the collective mind of America, perhaps the more perceptive part, has sensed that American culture (and Western culture at large) is slipping on a dangerous slope that could lead to abandoning the principles of competition, pluralism, freedom of thought and speech, and freedom of scientific research. This is where the ultra-PC "wokeness" of certain intolerant cultural and political actors leads. And that part of our collective mind has embraced Trump as the best way to fight back.
Of course there could be better ways to fight back, and of course a better candidate than Trump could emerge. But we must fight back in some or some other way.