Since I assume he doesn't want to have existential risk increase, a credible threat is all that's necessary.

Perhaps you weren't aware, but Eliezer has stated that it's rational to not respond to threats of blackmail. See this comment.

(EDIT: I deleted the rest of this comment since it's redundant given what you've written elsewhere in this thread.)

Ironically, your comment series is evidence that censorship partially succeeded in this case. Although existential risk could increase, that was not the primary reason for suppressing the idea in the post.

That ... may be true. I'm not very interested in putting Eliezer on trial, its the kind of petty politics I try to avoid. He seems to be doing a pretty good job of teaching interesting and useful stuff, setting up a functional community, and defending unusual ideas while not looking like a total loon. I don't think he needs "help" from any back seat drivers.

The impression I got of the whole Roko fiasco was that Eliezer was more concerned with avoiding nightmares in people he cared about than with the repercussions of Roko's post on existential risk. But I didn't dig into it very much - as I said, I'm not very interesting in he said / she said bickering. So I may be wrong in my impressions.

scary-cult-like-weirdos

To my mind 0.0001% isn't that much compared to what the post deletion means about the future of LW.

You're threatening to on average kill at least 6000 people, in order to get the moderation policy you prefer. You're also not completely insensitive to how people appear to others. Would you like to reconsider how you've been going about achieving your aims?

I find it hard to relate to the way of thinking of someone who's willing to increase the chances that humanity goes extinct if someone deletes his post from a forum on the internet.

Please go find another community to "help" with this kind of blackmail.

(Please don't vote unless you've read the whole thread found here)

I did not choose to downvote the parent based on this but I was tempted. I may have upvoted without the prescription.

I don't expect him to delete it. However, I don't expect the threat made in the comment to be among the reasons he does not delete it.

Yahweh and the associated moral system are far from incomprehensible if you know the cultural context of the Israelites. It's a recognizably human morality, just a brutal one obsessed with purity of various sorts.

The link and quotation you posted do not seem to back up your argument that the Abrahamic god follows CEV. Could you clarify?

Why would CEV want that?

Because 'CEV' must be instantiated on a group of agents (usually humans). Some humans are assholes. So for some value of aGroup, CEV<aGroup> does assholish things. Hopefully the group of all humans doesn't create a CEV that makes FAI<CEV<all humans>> an outright uFAI from our perspective but we certainly shouldn't count on it.

If you believe in moral progress (and CEV seems to rely on that position), then there's every reason to think that future-society would want to make changes to how we live, if future-society had the capacity to make that type of intervention.

In short, wouldn't you change the past to prevent the occurrence of chattel slavery if you could? (If you don't like that example, substitute preventing the October revolution or whatever example fits your preferences).

How do you want to guarantee friendliness? If there are post-Singularity aliens out there then their CEV might be opposed to that of humanity, which would ultimately either mean our or their extinction. Obviously any CEV acted on by some friendly AI is a dictatorship that regards any disruptive elements, such as unfriendly AI's and aliens, as an existential risk. You might call this friendly, I don't. It's simply one way to shape the universe that is favored by the SIAI, a bunch of human beings who want to imprint the universe with an anthropocentric version of CEV. Therefore, as I said above, friendliness is subjective and cannot be guaranteed. I don't even think that it can be guaranteed subjectively, as any personal CEV would ultimately be a feedback process favoring certain constants between you and the friendly AI trying suit your preferences. If you like sex, the AI will provide you with better sex which in turn will make you like sex even more and so on. Any CEV is prone to be a paperclip maximizer seen from any position that is not regarded by the CEV. That's not friendliness, it's just a convoluted way of shaping the universe according to your will.