In my opinion, there are a couple of solid takeaways from this description of Musk’s view on society, AI, etc.
1. Progressive used to mean something different than it does now. Progressives (Teddy Roosevelt) used to believe in the power of economic progress as a benefit to society. If business got in the way, then the government needed to step in. Now progressivism is about advancing specific social agendas, and pushing for government social interventions. Musk is a progressive in the former sense.
2. Twitter is perhaps on the way out, but Musk’s view on maximizing free speech is relevant and consistent with his version of progressivism. He explains that the more people can speak their minds, the more likely it is that the best ideas will emerge. He also suggests that it is also likely that this human interaction will be to the benefit of the AI corpus.
I’m not a Musk fan, but I find it difficult to disagree with these points.
Two quick thoughts about this comment: Gresham’s law. This might work in a civil discussion of important ideals. Unfortunately, neither of these apply to social media.
I don't know how aligned he feels his actions or plans are to its ideals, but I find that based as heck since it's the only vision of the future that compels me.
So this unmoderated flow of ideas... is that 4chan? You can "speak your mind" over there, but I have not heard of any useful ideas coming out of that.
Someone explain to me what the problem is. Is Joe from Baraboo, Wisconsin, not getting air time on primetime MSNBC? Is he being muzzled? What is the issue?
The article completely misunderstand the argument, and leaves out the actual important pieces. The argument is that allowing/incentivising some hypothetical AGI to pursue a certain ideology, like trying to inject someone's idea of 'social justice' into the world would pose the risk of allowing this AGI to lie and manipulate humans as subjects and we would lose control. If the incentive is to 'maximally seek truth', then this might be more likely to align with a future that values human life, in the same way that we value animals and appreciate the raw nature, without trying to intervene and change their instinctual behavior. Like trying to biologically modify lions to be vegan, vs. respecting the brutal reality of predator vs. prey. Whether this hypothetical idea is correct or not is debatable, but the article clearly misses the point.
10 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 70.2 ms ] thread1. Progressive used to mean something different than it does now. Progressives (Teddy Roosevelt) used to believe in the power of economic progress as a benefit to society. If business got in the way, then the government needed to step in. Now progressivism is about advancing specific social agendas, and pushing for government social interventions. Musk is a progressive in the former sense.
2. Twitter is perhaps on the way out, but Musk’s view on maximizing free speech is relevant and consistent with his version of progressivism. He explains that the more people can speak their minds, the more likely it is that the best ideas will emerge. He also suggests that it is also likely that this human interaction will be to the benefit of the AI corpus.
I’m not a Musk fan, but I find it difficult to disagree with these points.
https://www.businessinsider.com/free-speech-absolutist-elon-...
Musk does not believe in maximizing free speech. He believes in suppressing speech he doesn't like:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/04/elon-musk-...
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/04/10/after-matt-taibbi-leaves...
Despite his claims of "free speech absolutism", Musk is an authoritarian at heart. He simply can't help himself.
I don't know how aligned he feels his actions or plans are to its ideals, but I find that based as heck since it's the only vision of the future that compels me.
Someone explain to me what the problem is. Is Joe from Baraboo, Wisconsin, not getting air time on primetime MSNBC? Is he being muzzled? What is the issue?