= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
kess3r comments on The Nature of Offense - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (173)
Quick heavy-handed illustration:
You meet someone who was badly disfigured in an accident, let's say this guy, and after taking a look at him say "Holy shit, you're ugly!"
This is a completely true statement (being scalped by industrial machinery will do that), also rude and offensive, and has very little reason to need saying.
What about "everything that can be destroyed by the truth should be"? There might be an inconsistency between saying maximally true things and not offending people. What is the priority on LW?
On a somewhat related note, I can see it already. You spend years carefully programming your AI, calculating it's friendliness, making sure it is perfectly bayesian and perfectly honest. You are finally done. You turn it on and the first line it prints: Oh dear, you are quite ugly.
That statement obviously only applies when there is falsehood to be destroyed. I'm sure that guy knows he is not especially pretty. Telling him he's ugly may be truthful but it's also kind of like yelling "You're really hot" at the sun.