If it's like smoking, but safe, then who cares if less quit?

The projected amount of damage done by means of people hurt by not quitting ecigs needs to be higher than the projected amount of damage done by means of people not switching to ecigs for this to be alarming.

Why are vapers so convinced that vaping is "safe"? The supposed "safety" of e-cigs mostly looks like industry marketing to people desperate to preserve their habit.

I vape and I don't know if vaping is safe or not. But here's what I do know. From seeing how my body reacts to it, I think vaping is a better alternative than cigarettes to get nicotine. I am a full advocate for further research in to vaping and identifying the exact side effects.

It would be implausible for vaping to not be less harmful than smoking. And harm reduction is good! But that's a far cry from "vaping is 'safe'".

What I want to know is whether there's collaboration with MIRI. On safety, especially.

I replied to this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10721068. Short answer is that collaborations don't look unlikely, and we'll be able to say more when OpenAI's been up and running longer.

IMO: teaching people to appreciate culture or be good citizens is something that is nearly impossible (at least with the tools we have now). As it stands, it'd be a waste of everyone's time and money.

There is a lot of talk about how good it is to do this- yes, of course. But there is little talk of whether it is possible or how to make it possible. Comprehension of, say, math: that's something that can more-or-less be measured by a test. How do you measure someone having the attitude of a free thinker? Until practicalities are talked about, I can't see any of this as anything but posturing. There should be pushes for investigation like CFAR does.

That's silly, of course it can be taught, and it can even be measured if that's so important to you. Can this person read a text and understand the arguments that are being made? Can this person tease out subtexts and narratives and ideologies in the world around them? Can they write and make themselves understood? Can they follow an argument to its logical conclusions or pick apart failures in an argument? Can they recognize aesthetic and technical choices, or stylistic and intellectual affinities within a work of art? These are all skills necessary to be engaged in civic and cultural life, and they can absolutely be taught.

I'd rather be around people who have some understanding of the world they live in than a bunch of automatons who can code but are luddites in all other endeavors.

Compassion is the feeling compelling on to help others, no? In that case, the best thing to do is to help others as much as one can- that is, as effectively as one can.

His comparing of logos and the "free expression of a skilled painter" is honestly ridiculous. They are optimized for completely different things!

What, preference utilitarianism? Afaik, that does get discussed, especially in the Fun Theory sequence iirc. If you want some more discussion on torture vs. dust specks, I think nostalgebraist on tumblr had a discussion of it with slatestarscratchpad (again, iirc).

Well, yes? If Roko's basilisk was true, it'd be unethical to spread. It turned out to not be true, but if Roko was reasoning from the premise of it being true, or even possibly-true, then the action was still unethical.

If it's smart enough to be a threat, I wouldn't be surprised if it's smart enough to avoid getting EMPed.

If you're looking to support AI safety, the Machine Intelligence Research Institute is researching it.