EA is effective altruism. A group that spends their $ and effort trying to do the most good in the world, and is adjacent/overlaps with many of the author's group, rationalists. They are pro-technology, but existentially concerned about AGI.
e/acc is effective accelerationism. A more recent "spin" on EA, more loosely associated moniker, for people who are extremely pro technology, more tech = always good, and wish to herald in AGI asap. Their "founder", is on record saying that it's ok if AGI reigns supreme and humans die, as it would be our progeny.[0]
Thanks for the explanation. It's frustrating when people use acronyms and you don't know what they mean. Better to always be explicit on the first usage. I'm only marginal at following that ideal though.
Well, the part you are missing is the humor and hyperbole.
e/accs are in favor of technological progress because it has historically done well and they don't believe the science fiction nonsense of skynet killing everyone overnight.
You've fallen for the zoomer irony and Twitter memes if you actually think that people are trying to end the world.
These aren't memes, these are text replies illuminating the core worldview of e/acc's founder and what they are getting people onboard with. You're the one who has fallen for the standard "haha irony / humor, but not really" that unpalatable movements use like the depths of 4chan. If you do a small amount of digging, their crux is basically cult AGI worship as a god bringing in utopia and heaven, even when the reality could be the equivalent of Jonestown koolaid.
"If AI replaced us, it's fine because they're a worthy descendants?"
e/acc founder: "Personally, yes."
'"The overarching goal of humanity is to preserve the light of consciousness", this does not necessarily require the consciousness to be human in essence, is that correct?'
e/acc founder: "Yes. Correct."
"Man you are indifferent if humans get replaced by a future species, not really the most enticing eh?"
e/acc founder: "Humans will be replaced by its evolutionary forks in the matter configuration space causal DAG one way or another. I don't discriminate between biological, non-biological, or hybrid descendents."
The core e/acc people aren't "trying to end the world," they are cult worshipping their definition of technology is the ultimate good, vague endgoals of conquering the galaxies, humans be damned if they get in the way.
"Motte: e/acc is just techno-optimism, everyone who is against e/acc must be against building a better future and hate technology
Bailey: e/acc is about building a techno-god, we oppose any attempt to safeguard humanity by regulating AI in any form
And I find that people who complain about motte and baileys are simply unable to deal with the substantive claim, and instead have to vaguely say that their opponents are lying so that they can then accept an unstated absurd premise in the first place.
They do not believe in skynet.
And people's unwillingness to accept the argument that these people do not believe in a magic sci fi , by then saying "Well actually, you totally also do believe in the AI death god, and look how horrible it is that you are pro AI death god" is merely a symptom of being unable to deal the the arguments.
And when people say that actually they are pro AI god, what they are doing is that they are making fun of you. They are laughing at you.
And they laugh at you by basically saying "Yep! We are pro AI death cult!".
The reason why this is funny is because they do not believe in the fairy tale, story book nonsense. There is no danger in being pro AI god, because AI gods aren't real.
And yes, to the person who is afraid of skynet, this might sound bad. But the pro AI people are making fun of your fear of skynet.
> even when the reality could be the equivalent of Jonestown koolaid.
Ah see but the e/acc people aren't the ones doing crazy things. They are just building companies.
If they were the ones advocating for bombing datacenters then you would have a point. But they aren't doing that! They aren't going in front of congress trying to get new laws. They aren't trying to stop open source. They are just sitting around memeing and building cool stuff with tech.
How are we saying they’re lying? We’re saying they tell the truth! These are records of their Bailey arguments. It’s a shame you think they’re lying about it.
You know thats not an actual god in the tweet right?
You are falling for the funny technobabble which shows that you are the butt of the joke.
In the tweet thats just a fancy way of using funny words to describe physics and how technology is good.
But also, its not particularly relevant to the idea of science magic existing.
The tweet is literally just using big words to talk about the existing idea of thermodynamics that we've all learned about in 8th grade science class.
But also, once again, no matter how much they are using fancy words to make fun of these topics, they still aren't actually doing anything beyond building companies and making memes.
These people don't have the ability to use sci-fi magic. And they aren't lobbying congress to make laws, nor are they making threats about bombing data centers.
Thats the difference!
Edit:
Even people in the tweet chain that you linked are aware of the joke.
Marc Andreessen does not subscribe to Nick Land's ideology but calls himself e/acc.
It is a label adopted by people who do not take Eliezer's death cult seriously in the substance of its claims, but only in its ability to slow progress.
EA?