Re: The ethics of argument (was: AGI funding)

From: Slawomir Paliwoda (
Date: Sun Nov 10 2002 - 16:13:38 MST

Ben's framing of the argument is excellent. I also think that not convincing
Y of X runs much bigger risk than convincing Y of X2. Not only that, the
risk of convincing Y of X1 runs a risk of not being understood at all
therefore convincing Y of X2 is the only choice, especially since X1 and X2
are the same. There exists no compromise in convincing Y of X2 because X2 is
equivalent to X1. Let me make this point very clear.

X1 = ((8^(1/3) - 4) * (-8))^(1/2)

X2 = 2+2

Where the only thing you really want to convince Y of is that "X is 4" is
true. Those are the real choices here. X1 is scary and complicated while X2
says the same thing, but in a different, more accessible way. There is no
moral compromise in convincing Y that "X2 is 4" is true rather than "X1 is

X1 talks about FAI in terms of Singularity, an SL4 topic meant for SL0
audience. Convincing Y of X1 is therefore equivalent to not convincing Y of
X at all, because the audience is unable to understand it or accept it
emotionally. X2, however, talks about easy to understand humanitarian
aspects of FAI, which has been the real X all along.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:41 MDT