= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Open Thread: April 2010, Part 2 - 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 (194)
Help me, LessWrong. I want to build a case for
These phrasings should mean the exact same thing. Correct me if they don't.
Elaboration: Most people readily agree that most information is good most of the time. I want to see if I can go all the way and build a convincing argument that all information is good all of the time, or as close to it as I can get. That misuse of information is problem about the misuser and not the information ("guns don't kill people"). Specific cases include: endangered species (DNA is best stored in living organisms), viruses (all three kinds), forbidden books, child pornography and other shocking information, free speech, Archive.org, The Rosetta Project, research on race.
Please post arguments and counterarguments in their own comments and separately from general discussion comments.
Information takes work to produce, to filter, and to receive, and more work to evaluate it and (if genuinely new) to understand it. There's a strong case that information isn't a terminal value because it's not the only thing people need to do with their time.
You wouldn't want your inbox filled with all the things anyone believes might be information for you.
Another case of limiting information: rules about what juries are allowed to know before they come to a verdict.
There might be an important difference between forbidding censorchip vs. having information as a terminal value.