Few will care about a silly comment on one post, especially given the context. Anybody using it as ammunition will look really petty.
Better ammunition:"But when Eliezer was counterfactually mugged, he didn't pay. How serious is he on his decision theory?"
Even if the procedural problems here give him a good reason not to 'pay', paying is better rhetorically. (though he may clarify that he won't pay under similarly sloppy conditions again.)
Few will care about a silly comment on one post, especially given the context. Anybody using it as ammunition will look really petty.
I disagree. I think it could be used very effectively without explanation alongside a more serious criticism, possibly with a permalink to the actual comment.
I'm going to test just how much the people here are committed to paying a Counterfactual Mugger, by playing Omega.
I'm going to roll a die. If it doesn't come up 5 or 6, I'm going to ask Eliezer Yudkowsky to reply to this article with the comment "I am a poopy head." If I roll a 5 or 6, I'm going to donate $20 to SIAI if I predict that Eliezer Yudkowsky will post the above comment.
Because Eliezer has indicated that he would pay up when counterfactually mugged, I do predict that, if I roll a 5 or 6, he'll respond.
::rolls die::
Darn it! It's a 5. Well, I'm a man of my word, so...
::donates::
Um, let's try that again. (At least I've proven my honesty!)
::rolls die::
Okay, this time it's a 1.
So, Eliezer, will you post a comment admitting that you're a poopy head?