= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
homunq comments on Attention Lurkers: Please say hi - 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 (617)
Hi.
I am not actually a lurker - I currently have 13 karma - but I am not a heavy participator. However, now I would like to get to 20 karma so I can make a post on why MWI makes acausal incentives into minor considerations. I would also be gratified if someone told me how to make my draft of this post linkable, even if it does not show up within "new".
I think that you should get some bonus towards the initial 20 karma for your average karma per post. This belief is clearly self-serving, but not necessarily thereby invalid. I believe my own average karma per post is decent but not outstanding.
I believe that the businesslike tone of this post, as a series of declarative statements, will be seen as excessive subservience to the imagined norms of a community of rationalists, and thus net me less status and karma than a chattier post. I am honestly unsure if the simple self-referential gambit of this paragraph will help or hurt this situation.
I posted a diary, and it was banned for containing a dangerous idea. I can understand that certain ideas are dangerous; in fact, in the discussion I started, I consciously refrained from expressing several sub-points for that reason, starting with my initial post. But I think that if there's such a policy, it should be explicit, and there should be some form of appeal. If the very discussion of these issues shouldn't happen in public, then there should be a private space to give whatever explanation can be given of why. A secret, unappealable rule which cannot even be discussed - this is not the path to rationalism, it's the way down the rabbit hole.
No posts on Riddle Theory.
Nor joke warfare
Nor pictures of birds.
Nor writing "Bloody Mary" in lipstick on mirrors?
Seriously, my post was about why that stuff is not scary. Fiction can be good allegory for reality, but those stories all use a lot of you-should-be-scared tricks, all very well and good for ghost stories, but not conducive to actual discussion.
We are swimming in a soup of sirens' songs, every single day. Dangerous ideas don't just exist, they abound. But I see no evidence of any dangerous ideas which are not best fought with some measure of banality, among other tactics. The trappings of Avert Your Eyes For That Way Lies Doom seem to be one of the best ways to <strong>enhance</strong> the danger of an idea.
In fact... what if Eliezer himself... no, that would be too horrible... oh my god, it's full of stars. (Or, in serious terms: I'm being asked to believe not just in a threat, but also that those who claim to protect us have some special immunity, either inherent or acquired; I see no evidence for either proposition).
Gah, it's incredibly annoying to try to talk about something without being too explicit. The more explicit I get in my head, the more ridiculous this whole charade seems to me. Of course I can find plenty of rational arguments to support that, but I also trust the feeling. I'm participationg in the "that which must not be mentioned" dance out of both respect and precaution, but honestly, it's mostly just respect. You're smart people and high status in this arena and I probably shouldn't laugh at your bugaboos.
Just to point out some irony - I'm participating in the "that which must not be mentioned" dance out of lost respect. I no longer believe Eliezer is able to consider such questions rationally. Anyone who wants to have a useful discussion on the subject must find a place outside of Eliezer's influence to do it. For much the same reason I don't try to discuss the details of biology in church.
FWIW, it seems pretty ridiculous to me too. It might be funny - were it not so negative.
Plus, if you don't do the dance just right, your comments get deleted by the moderator.
So apparently either "that which can be destroyed by the truth should be" is false, or you've written dangerous falsehoods which would overtax the rationality of our readers. Eliezer's response above seems to imply the former.
Did you read the "riddle theory" link? The riddle is not dangerous because it's false, but because it's incomprehensible.
And of course, if you meant to list all the possibilities, you left out the ones where E. is just wrong about the danger.
My comparison at the time was to The Ring.
Very good question, but AFAIK Eliezer tries to not think the dangerous thought, too.
Seconded.
I don't think there was ever any good evidence that the thought was dangerous.
At the time I argued that youthful agents that might become powerful would be able to promise much to helpers and to threaten supporters of their competitors - if they were so inclined. They would still be able to do that whether people think the forbidden thought or not. All that is needed is for people not to be able to block out such messages. That seems reasonable - if the message needs to get out it can be put into TV adverts and billboards - and then few will escape exposure.
In which case, the thought seems to be more forbidden than dangerous.
If there was any such evidence, it would be in the form of additional details, and sharing it with someone would be worse than punching them in the face. So don't take the lack of publically disclosed evidence as an indication that no evidence exists, because it isn't.
It actually is, in the sense we use the term here.
I think we already had most of the details, many of them in BOLD CAPS for good measure.
But there is the issue of probabilities - of how much it is likely to matter. FWIW, I do not fear thinking the forbidden thought. Indeed, it seems reasonable to expect that people will think similar thoughts more in the future - and that those thoughts will motivate people to act.
It's not a special immunity, it's a special vulnerability which some people have. For most people reading the forbidden topic would be safe. Unfortunately most of those people don't take the matter serious enough so allowing them to read it is not safe for others.
EDIT: Removed first paragraph since it might have served as a minor clue.
Interesting.
Well, if that's the case, I can state with high confidence that I am not vulnerable to the forbidden idea. I don't believe it, and even if I saw something that would rationally convince me, I am too much of a constitutional optimist to let that kind of danger get me.
So, what's the secret knock so people will tell me the secret? I promise I can keep a secret, and I know I can keep a promise. In fact, the past shows that I am more likely to draw attention to the idea accidentally, in ignorance, than deliberately.
(Of course, I would have to know a little more about the extent of my promise before I'd consider it binding. But I believe I'd make such a promise, once I knew more about its bounds.)
If we're going to keep acquiring more banned topics, there ought to be a list of them somewhere.
You just lost the game.
Response to this above. (attached to grandchild)
What? Is this separate from the recent Banned Post? Is this a different idea?
It was a counter argument against the dangerous topic being dangerous, which by necessity touched the dangerous topic and which wasn't strong enough to justify this (anyone for whom the dangerous topic actually would be dangerous [rather than just causing nightmares] would almost by necessity already be aware of a stronger argument).
Interesting. Thanks, uprated; with the caveat that of course, we only have your word that the other argument is "stronger".
Without further evidence, it's my rationality plus consideration of the issue minus overconfidence against yours. You have an advantage on consideration, since you know both arguments while I only know that I know one; however, on the whole, I think it would be pathological for me to abandon my argument and belief just on that basis. As for the other aspects, we're both probably smarter and less biased than average people, and I don't see any argument to swing that.
In other words, I still think I'm right.