Thanks for the review! I'm a bit confused by the critiques of style over substance. Personal taste is hard to argue with, but do you actually disagree with any of the arguments put forth in the book? If so, which?
Re variations on "They don't spend enough time on X" - turns out it's hard to address everything in 233 pages! The online resources go into way more detail about quite a lot of Xs, including more and more recent empirical work. https://ifanyonebuildsit.com/resources
(In the case of monkeys specifically, I'd also add that more than half of primate species are endangered by the side effects of humanity's actions. Historically, despite the efforts of a few conservationists, humanity has observably not valued the existence of monkeys more than it's valued the lumber and farmland that can be gotten by destroying their habitats. The fact they're still around outside of zoos isn't exactly a testament to our restraint.) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5242557/
> For all their analogy to evolution and human superiority over animals, they do not have a compelling explanation for why humans keep monkeys around...
Yes, I'm not sure this is a great example of the book not having a compelling explanation for why this is not good - isn't it self-evident why we wouldn't want to be the equivalent to monkeys in an AGI world? Or "Chimpanzees should be careful about inventing humans." [1]
I found it quite readable! Although I am a veteran of The Sequences so perhaps I am primed for Yudkowskianisms
Interesting! Might just be a personal preference thing.
Thanks for the review! I'm a bit confused by the critiques of style over substance. Personal taste is hard to argue with, but do you actually disagree with any of the arguments put forth in the book? If so, which?
Re variations on "They don't spend enough time on X" - turns out it's hard to address everything in 233 pages! The online resources go into way more detail about quite a lot of Xs, including more and more recent empirical work. https://ifanyonebuildsit.com/resources
For one example, "why humans keep monkeys around" is addressed, at least with respect to a different animal, here: https://ifanyonebuildsit.com/5/but-we-still-have-horses-why-wouldnt-ai-keep-us-around
(In the case of monkeys specifically, I'd also add that more than half of primate species are endangered by the side effects of humanity's actions. Historically, despite the efforts of a few conservationists, humanity has observably not valued the existence of monkeys more than it's valued the lumber and farmland that can be gotten by destroying their habitats. The fact they're still around outside of zoos isn't exactly a testament to our restraint.) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5242557/
> For all their analogy to evolution and human superiority over animals, they do not have a compelling explanation for why humans keep monkeys around...
Yes, I'm not sure this is a great example of the book not having a compelling explanation for why this is not good - isn't it self-evident why we wouldn't want to be the equivalent to monkeys in an AGI world? Or "Chimpanzees should be careful about inventing humans." [1]
[1] Carlsmith, Gentleness and the Artificial Other, https://joecarlsmith.com/2024/01/02/gentleness-and-the-artificial-other
For someone new to the subject, I wonder if the content “everyone might die” will keep them turning pages…past stylistic issues?