= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
timtyler comments on Advice for AI makers - 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 (196)
Incidentally, I hope you don't mean the "self-aggrandising" / "green ink" comments literally!
Disagreeing with majorities is often a bad sign. Delusional individuals may create "green ink" explanations of why others are foolish enough to disagree with them. However, critics may also find themselves disagreeing with majorities - for example when in the company of the associates of those being criticised. That is fairly often my role here. I am someone not in the thrall of the prevailing reality distortion field. Under those circumstances disagreements do not have the same significance.
The indicated sections are green ink - claims which are easy to make regardless of the rectitude of your opinion, and which therefore are made by fools with higher-than-normal frequency.
I recommend you check with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_ink
Arguing that fools make statement X with greater-than-average frequency is a rather feeble argument that someone making statement X is a fool. I am not sure why you are even bothering to present it.
Well, the first bold section is a true, general and relevant statement.
I won't say what my estimate of a person's rationality would be, given only the information that they had written the second bold section somewhere on the internet; but it wouldn't be 100% crank, either.
That doesn't mean the ink isn't green. In this particular case, he is persistently claiming that his remarks are being attacked due to various sorts of biases on the parts of those reading it, and he is doing so:
That's green ink.
Edited for pronouns.
Edited for pronouns again, properly this time. Curse you, Picornaviridae Rhinovirus!
I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_ink makes it pretty clear that green ink is barely-coherent rambling coming from nutcases.
Someone disagreeing with other people and explaining why he thinks they are wrong is not "green ink" - unless that individual is behaving in a crazy fashion.
I don't think anyone has any evidence that my behaviour is anything other than rational and sane in this case. At any rate, so far no such evidence has been presented AFAICS. So: I think "green ink" is a fairly clear mis-characterisation.
No, green ink covers a much wider span of writing than that. And honestly, no matter what disagreements you find yourself having with a group of people, and this would include circumstances where you were the only rationalist in a room full of crystal healers, you should never find yourself uttering the phrase "I am someone not in the thrall of the prevailing reality distortion field".
Um - why not?
I think that is just a difference of personalities.
If I am in a region where there's a reality distortion field in action, I don't necessarily avoid pointing that out for the sake of everyone's feelings - or for some other reason.
That would let the participants continue in their trance - and that might not be good for them, or others they interact with.
You can point something out, but it is an act of petty sabotage to repeat the same statements over and over again with no apparent effect but to irritation of the public. Even if you are in fact right, and the other guys are lunatics.
I have nothing to say at the moment regarding your actual argumentation upthread - what I am criticizing is your reaction to the downvoting et seq. I don't care what you call it: stop.
Confused about pronouns even after your edit: who is "you"? My remarks aren't being downvoted, so I assume "you" doesn't mean me. And you used "he" to refer to Tim Tyler, so I assume "you" doesn't mean him.
I apologize, I r dum.