this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2024
167 points (94.2% liked)
NoSafetySmokingFirst
435 readers
30 users here now
Welcome to NoSafetySmokingFirst!
For images where the text reads correctly left to right, but visual cues (like colouration, vertical proximity, or horizontal separation) lead you to try to read it top to bottom.
This is similar to, but distinct from, the more widely known “DontDeadOpenInside” format. In that case, the text reads correctly top to bottom, but visual cues (like colouration, horizontal proximity, or vertical separation) lead you to try to read it left to right.
The post that started it all:
Other related communities:
- [email protected]
- [email protected] (letters arranged in any confusing order)
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
He and his other cronies declared their plan was to accumulate a tonne of money and give it all away to charities. They called it effective altruism which we now know was total BS
"Well, I get to be a huge fucking asshole all I want, because if I, at some point in the future, spend all my money building the AI supergod it will save all of potential humanity, doing more good than anything ever before!"
"But, can't you do that AND feed hungry babies?"
"No, the AI supergod requires a second golden airplane!"
Well, a bunch of ernest and thoughtful philosophers called it effective altruism (see Toby Ord, will mccaskill, Peter singer). Then it was adopted by the deluded arrogant tech/finance bros and yeah yikes. Sucks to be a philosopher I guess. Someone uses your ideas fraudulently and boom, they're your problem.
Anyone that spends more time philosophizing about doing good than doing good isn't worth listening to.
Peter Singer, btw, Mr Effective Altruism himself, wanted to genocide disabled infants. Not abort them as fetuses. Infanticide them.
If you think ideas can't do good, then it sounds like you haven't spent much time listening to anyone. Obviously if you'd considered it even cursorily you'd recognise that we need philosophy/politics/law to get beyond "sky man says bad" levels of ethics and morality in society.
Your opinion is irrelevant, you didn't even detect the difference between no thought at all and the criticism of thinking about doing good more than doing good.
How about if you spend more time being an ass to people online than doing good?