Can I just state categorically that this "ways to increase existential risks" thing is stupid and completely over the top.

We should be able to discuss things, sometimes even continuing discussion in private. We should not stoop to playing silly games of brinksmanship.

Geez, if we can't eve avoid existential brinksmanship on the goddamn LW forum when the technology is hypothetical and the stakes are low, what hope in hell do we have when real politicians get wind of real progress in AGI?

No one asked or forced Roko to leave Less Wrong. Wounded by Eliezer's public reprimand, Roko deleted all his comments and said that he is leaving.

(I for one wish he would come back. He was a valuable contributor.)

I don't understand why you're so upset about LW posts being deleted, to the extent of being willing to increase existential risks just to prevent that from happening.

The US government censors child pornography, details of nuclear weapon designs, etc., with penalty of imprisonment instead of just having a post deleted. If you care so much about censorship, why do you not focus your efforts on it instead? (Not to mention other countries like China and North Korea.)

How much experience do you have with various online communities?

I've found that those with somewhat strict moderation by sane people have better discussion than those with little or no moderation.

I think "freedom of speech" has different connotations, and different consequences in online communities, compared to the real world. Anonimity makes a big difference, as does the possibility of leaving and joining another community, or the fact that "real-life consequences" are much smaller.

I'm seriously considering brainstorming a list of easy ways to increase existential risks by %0.0001, and then performing one at random every time I hear such a reduction cited as the reason for silliness like this.

(Deleting this post, or the one I'm replying to, would count),

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here - are you saying that you are willing to try to increase existential risk by %0.0001 if someone deletes your post ???

If so, you're a fucking despicable dick. But I may have misunderstood you.

(Deleting this post, or the one I'm replying to, would count),

Eliezer might delete it anyway, although I don't expect it. You made a threat, not an offer. If the fiasco with Roko didn't convince you that he takes decision theory seriously, what will?

Heh, that makes Roko's scenario similar to the Missionary Paradox: if only those who know about God but don't believe go to hell, it's harmful to spread the idea of God. (As I understand it, this doesn't come up because most missionaries think you'll go to hell even if you don't know about the idea of God.)

But I don't think any God is supposed to follow a human CEV; most religions seem to think it's the other way around.

The more recent analysis I've read says that people pretty much become suicide bombers for nationalist reasons, not religious reasons.

I suppose that "There should not be American bases on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia" is a hybrid of the two, and so might be "I wanted to kill because Muslims were being hurt"-- it's a matter of group identity more than "Allah wants it".

I don't have specifics for the 9/11 bombers.

Either I misunderstand CEV, or the above statement re: the Abrahamic god following CEV is false.

Not the same reason at all, sorry.

Let's stop here.

Roko thinks (or thought) it would. I do too. Can't argue it in detail here, sorry.

Until about a month ago, I would have agreed, but some posts I have since read on LW made me update the probability of CEV wanting that upwards.