Agreed (which is why the post-scarcity world of The Culture novels is so interesting). I think Eliezer is quite the techno optimist, and he's said space travel was one of the defining interests that put him on his current path.
Maybe... but consider this: If we solve death, then we quite probably solve aging, which means we won't be spending too many resources on healthcare for people in the end stages of life. We also retain our smart people, who are around for much longer to create solutions to said resource problem.
Hey! I follow your channel! It's amazing to see you here. Do you know what Aubrey de Grey is doing about aging?Have you read Ending Aging? There are at least a couple of videos on UA-cam in which Aubrey and Eliezer are together :)
The longer you live, the more life experience you’ve got, and the more thoughts you’ve had and the more insights you’ve formed, and the more wisdom you’ve accumulated. This is then shared. You tell them in the future what it was like 300 years ago, you tell them what sort of course the world is on, having observed its trajectory for so long and catalogued the different threads of change. You give them the long view that today we must gain again and again by historical analysis after the fact.
I understand and agree with him on favoring rationality over optimism, but all other things being equal optimism (in the face of the unknown) is better than pessimism.
True, but there is a limit to how many people that are able to fit onto a planet and still survive happily. Ideally, by the time we solve death, we also solve space travel and space colonization. Currently, however, people not dying will cause an extreme population spike. And everyone knows 90% of all conflict is resource related.
That's not how proof by induction works, tho. You can't just say: 1 is x. 2 is x. Therefore every number is x. You have to say: 1 is x. if y is x, then y + 1 is x. Therefore every number is x. With death, you don't know if you'll always want to be alive. You'd have to prove that you can't change your mind on this from one day to the next.
Man... I get you: after a while lots of this stuff becomes properly self-evident when you consider it a bit, and it's downright SILLY how we approach/view some things now. However, you lose credibility hard when PRESENTING them as such. Be more empathic with an audience that does not consider these questions every day and drop the smugg-ish 'dead gives meaning to life? HOW RIDICULOUS AMIRITE'. Re-watch your favorite TED videos and pay attention to this. Content-wise spot on of course! :)
He really misses te mark on philosophical subject, he strawmens a lot. He probably hasn't even read any serious philosopher (Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer, etc.)
Does it really matter? Just whatever gives you an excuse to not hear what he actually says, uh? and what if he had read those and found them insufficient, in our dire circumstances?
I agree. Impermanence is often a beautiful thing. That's whats nice about evolution though, that's exactly what it is impermanence. Regardless of whether or not we eliminate aging and disease we will continue to evolve thus the beauty will persist into the future.
@@Continential I don’t know… I think immortality precludes experiencing beauty to its fullest extent, at least in relation to nature. It positions you above your surroundings - as something ascendant, and as such, detached from it. Basically, it would be an extension of what Cartesian dualism has done to position us as separate from nature. Sure, we may appreciate the beauty in the living world, but only as an attraction - a play that we’re looking at from the outside, rather than a spectacle that we’re intrinsically part of, that shapes us and that we shape in turn. Compare how nature appears to animists as opposed to, say, Christians. Our experience of nature is immensely diminished by our self-proclaimed superiority over it. So setting aside the aesthetic value of the impermanence that death represents, lacking that impermanence would mean detaching ourselves even further from nature, and as such from experiencing its beauty in full. Sure, there’s still the whole universe to marvel at, so maybe it’s an acceptable sacrifice, but personally I place a lot of value on what is and will always be our ancestral home. Now I understand you may disagree with both my premises and my conclusions, and that’s fine. This is just to explain a part of why I’m personally not at all interested in immortality. Also thanks for letting me reflect over how my thoughts on the subject have evolved over the past seven years!
It's sad to see how much more positive Elizier was 10 years ago.
The money is shifting towards the negative side..so he had to change course😅
Agreed (which is why the post-scarcity world of The Culture novels is so interesting). I think Eliezer is quite the techno optimist, and he's said space travel was one of the defining interests that put him on his current path.
Can't help but like this guy
Man I like this Yudowsky Guy
Maybe... but consider this: If we solve death, then we quite probably solve aging, which means we won't be spending too many resources on healthcare for people in the end stages of life. We also retain our smart people, who are around for much longer to create solutions to said resource problem.
Hey! I follow your channel! It's amazing to see you here. Do you know what Aubrey de Grey is doing about aging?Have you read Ending Aging? There are at least a couple of videos on UA-cam in which Aubrey and Eliezer are together :)
You're right! What a terrible outcome!
The longer you live, the more life experience you’ve got, and the more thoughts you’ve had and the more insights you’ve formed, and the more wisdom you’ve accumulated. This is then shared. You tell them in the future what it was like 300 years ago, you tell them what sort of course the world is on, having observed its trajectory for so long and catalogued the different threads of change. You give them the long view that today we must gain again and again by historical analysis after the fact.
Well it wasn't about an intelligence explosion but this was fascinating nonetheless!
You got a point, uploader gave this a very misleading title. I think the video is awesome though.
this guy need to make his lesswrong posts into videos
Totally
This was engrossing, thank you.
I understand and agree with him on favoring rationality over optimism, but all other things being equal optimism (in the face of the unknown) is better than pessimism.
He sounds a lot like Harry Potter from this awesome fanfiction I read a while back...
🤔 I wonder why
If you mean "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality", he's the author
@@tochoXK3 bro how many sequences did you have to read to piece that together???
great guy!
There's not a word about intelligence explosion in that talk.
True. he says "the title of this talk is Positive Futurism" around 20:15
It’s the setting of the talk
Great talk but you need to change the title.
sheesh... working on alignment destroyed him.
Play at 1.25x speed. ;)
That was actually some of the best advice I've ever gotten from a youtube comment. Thanks, and gg.
Rusty Red Thank you. Please thumbs up the comment and spread the intelligence explosion.
True, but there is a limit to how many people that are able to fit onto a planet and still survive happily. Ideally, by the time we solve death, we also solve space travel and space colonization. Currently, however, people not dying will cause an extreme population spike. And everyone knows 90% of all conflict is resource related.
That's not how proof by induction works, tho.
You can't just say: 1 is x. 2 is x. Therefore every number is x.
You have to say: 1 is x. if y is x, then y + 1 is x. Therefore every number is x.
With death, you don't know if you'll always want to be alive. You'd have to prove that you can't change your mind on this from one day to the next.
Man... I get you: after a while lots of this stuff becomes properly self-evident when you consider it a bit, and it's downright SILLY how we approach/view some things now. However, you lose credibility hard when PRESENTING them as such.
Be more empathic with an audience that does not consider these questions every day and drop the smugg-ish 'dead gives meaning to life? HOW RIDICULOUS AMIRITE'. Re-watch your favorite TED videos and pay attention to this.
Content-wise spot on of course! :)
Don't eat Yoda and don't eat piggy either.
I'm a deathist because if people didn't die, there would be a resource problem.
If everyone died there wouldn't be a resource problem.
Don't have children.
This is great stand up loooool
He really misses te mark on philosophical subject, he strawmens a lot. He probably hasn't even read any serious philosopher (Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer, etc.)
Does it really matter? Just whatever gives you an excuse to not hear what he actually says, uh?
and what if he had read those and found them insufficient, in our dire circumstances?
I suppose I'm crazy for thinking that impermanence is actually a beautiful thing.
Not crazy at all. But impermanence will persist whether or not death persists.
I agree. Impermanence is often a beautiful thing. That's whats nice about evolution though, that's exactly what it is impermanence. Regardless of whether or not we eliminate aging and disease we will continue to evolve thus the beauty will persist into the future.
You do not need to die young to enjoy the beauty of impermanence. Young being before your 120th birthday :D :D
@@Continential I don’t know… I think immortality precludes experiencing beauty to its fullest extent, at least in relation to nature. It positions you above your surroundings - as something ascendant, and as such, detached from it.
Basically, it would be an extension of what Cartesian dualism has done to position us as separate from nature. Sure, we may appreciate the beauty in the living world, but only as an attraction - a play that we’re looking at from the outside, rather than a spectacle that we’re intrinsically part of, that shapes us and that we shape in turn. Compare how nature appears to animists as opposed to, say, Christians. Our experience of nature is immensely diminished by our self-proclaimed superiority over it.
So setting aside the aesthetic value of the impermanence that death represents, lacking that impermanence would mean detaching ourselves even further from nature, and as such from experiencing its beauty in full. Sure, there’s still the whole universe to marvel at, so maybe it’s an acceptable sacrifice, but personally I place a lot of value on what is and will always be our ancestral home.
Now I understand you may disagree with both my premises and my conclusions, and that’s fine. This is just to explain a part of why I’m personally not at all interested in immortality.
Also thanks for letting me reflect over how my thoughts on the subject have evolved over the past seven years!
starts off sounding like a teenager. sounds better now, talking about AI
But fish and chickens can feel pain, so we shouldn't eat them! (Haha, just kidding.)
you're right though.