You can define the morally good as: that set of behaviors which you have many strong reasons to train others to do, especially through rewarding them with praise. Similarly, morally bad (or "evil") can be defined as: that set of behaviors which you have many strong reasons to train others not to do, especially through negatively reinforcing them with condemnation. We are all subtly training each other, especially through praise and condemnation. But especially, parents tend to train children, and in general, older members of a social group train the young. Thus training can pass down from generation to generation. But younger people, especially from the ages of about 3 to about 11, are more susceptible to training than older people. After this point, the rate of acquisition of training slows, and humans may even become resistant to training. Old people may become very incapable of, or very resistant to, new training. That might be a bug, or it m...
Posts
I have said that Hegel's project is the critique of Romanticism. But what is Romanticism? Trying to define Romanticism is famously difficult. It resists definition, it defies categorization. And if anything, it is that resistance. If I could try to describe Romanticism with one word, it would be rebellion. But of course that's too simplistic. Romanticism and rebellion are not simply synonyms. Romantics do not always rebel, and when they rebel, they rebel in a specific way. The Romantic poet or the Romantic artist usually says something like, "I am a human! I am a person! I am an individual being, with feelings, real feelings!" Romanticism is a rebellion from the heart, so to speak. Romantic rebellion is not about taxes or insurance or debt reform or many of the other material things that have historically incited insurrections throughout history. The Romantic - the Romantic poet, for instance - demands recognition. Every ...
The most glaring error in Austrian, Neoclassical, and Neoliberal economics
The most fundamental, glaring error in Austrian economics - as well as Neoclassical, Neoliberal and related forms of economics, including Hayek and much of what passes for "mainstream" economics - is the problem of monopoly and their magical thinking about "perfect competition."
How I disagree with Yudkowsky
LessWrong began as a blog about how Bayesian statistics is better than frequentism. I've already written about my opinion about Bayesianism. Suffice it to say here that although I respect it, I don't think it's as omnipotent as some of its most dogmatic adherents do. I've written a lot on this blog about how much I hate and oppose utilitarianism. Mostly, this is because I think utilitarianism is unscientific. It should therefore come as no surprise that I am opposed to "Effective Altruism," which is a recent, and particularly nasty form of utilitarianism. I don't especially blame Yudkowsky for this - I put the blame much more on Peter Singer and others who founded this movement. But one must admit that Yudkowsky and his followers did quite stupidly and uncritically go along with this nonsense, and it led them to terrible errors. Some people think that Yudkowsky and his followers are wrong about AI. But I think they are wrong about humanity ....
Some common sense principles and a radical idea
1. A person should be able to do anything they want to their own body: dress how they want, get whatever piercings or tattoos they want, get any surgery they want, take any medication they want, etc.. A person should also be able to not do anything their own body that they don't want to do. 2. People should should be able to fuck whomever they want, so long as everyone involved is a consenting adult. Also, obviously, a person should also be able not to fuck anyone they don't want to fuck. 3. No one should be discriminated against, as workers, for any behavior that falls under common sense principles 1 and 2. 4. People should be legally allowed to say whatever they want. Included in this is: people should be legally allowed to call each other whatever they want, including mean, nasty, rude names. No one should be discriminated against for exercising their free speech, either - especially outside of work, but even at work, so long as it doesn't interfere wit...
Adam Conover's Conspiracy Theory Doesn't Make Sense
I like Adam Conover. I've watched him since the CollegeHumor days. He's funny, he's smart, and I agree with a lot of the stuff he's said in the past. I'll probably agree with a lot of stuff he says in the future. But recently, he uploaded a video, "AI Existential Risk Was Invented to Distract Us" which seems pretty half-baked. Now I don't really think that it's very likely that AI will kill everyone. I think it's much more likely that AI enslave us or make us doglike. (To see my list of probabilities, click here.) That said, I don't think it's impossible that AI will kill or hurt a lot of people. Just unlikely. And even though it's unlikely, it's important that we take steps to make sure it doesn't happen. But Conover thinks that people like me, who are concerned about this, are just big dummies, suckers, rubes, who have had the wool pulled over our eyes. According to Conover, we are victims of a conspiracy - a v...