Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Ryan Shea — e/acc
@ryanshea.eth
Some have asked about e/acc vs d/acc & so I feel I should say a few words about it: d/acc is cool, and a noble effort, but as defined, it shouldn’t be considered an offshoot of e/acc but antithetical to it & closer to EA. Why? It emphasizes we should be “uniquely careful” with AI, which violates the basic tenet.
3 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Kelsey Sheely
@knsheely
Is there a d/acc manifesto or something that you are referring to which emphasizes being "uniquely careful?" I didn't really get that impression from Vitalik's explanation.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Ryan Shea — e/acc
@ryanshea.eth
“AI is fundamentally different from other tech, and it is worth being uniquely careful.” https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2023/11/27/techno_optimism.html
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Kelsey Sheely
@knsheely
Okay, I see now. I originally read that section as an acknowledgement that there is danger to AI, not that the answer is safetyism. I won't speak for Vitalik, but to me the idea of d/acc is complementary to e/acc as it is about the acceleration of defensive/decentralized tech as opposed to gov imposed safetyism.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Ryan Shea — e/acc
@ryanshea.eth
If you spend time in the e/acc community then you’ll see that this doesn’t describe a philosophy that is compatible with e/acc:
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
