= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kevin comments on Existential Risk and Public Relations - 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 (613)
I am a relative newbie commenter here, and my interest in this site has so far been limited to using it as a fun forum where it's possible to discuss all kinds of sundry topics with exceptionally smart people. However, I have read a large part of the background sequences, and I'm familiar with the main issues of concern here, so even though it might sound impertinent coming from someone without any status in this community, I can't resist commenting on this article.
To put it bluntly, I think the main point of the article is, if anything, an understatement. Let me speak from personal experience. From the perspective of this community, I am a sort of person who should be exceptionally easy to get interested and won over to its cause, considering both my intellectual background and my extreme openness to contrarian viewpoints and skepticism towards the official academic respectability as a criteron of truth and intellectual soundness. Yet, to be honest, even though I find a lot of the writing and discussion here extremely interesting, and the writings of Yudkowsky (in addition to others such as Bostrom, Hanson, etc.) have convinced me that technology-related existential risks should be taken much more seriously than they presently are, I still keep encountering things in this community that set off various red flags, which are undoubtedly taken by many people as a sign of weirdness and crackpottery, and thus alienate huge numbers of potential quality audience.
Probably the worst such example I've seen was the recent disturbance in which Roko was subjected to abuse that made him leave. When I read the subsequent discussions, it surprised me that virtually nobody here appears to be aware what an extreme PR disaster it was. Honestly, for someone unfamiliar with this website who has read about that episode, it would be irrational not to conclude that there's some loony cult thing going on here, unless he's also presented with enormous amounts of evidence to the contrary in the form of a selection of the best stuff that this site has to offer. After these events, I myself wondered whether I want to be associated with an outlet where such things happen, even just as an occasional commenter. (And not to even mention that Roko's departure is an enormous PR loss in its own right, in that he was one of the few people here who know how to write in a way that's interesting and appealing to people who aren't hard-core insiders.)
Even besides this major PR fail, I see many statements and arguments here that may be true, or at least not outright unreasonable, but should definitely be worded more cautiously and diplomatically if they're given openly for the whole world to see. I'm not going to get into details of concrete examples -- in particular, I do not concur unconditionally with any of the specific complaints from the above article -- but I really can't help but conclude that lots of people here, including some of the most prominent individuals, seem oblivious as to how broader audiences, even all kinds of very smart, knowledgeable, and open-minded people, will perceive what they write and say. If you want to have a closed inner circle where specific background knowledge and attitudes can be presumed, that's fine -- but if you set up a large website attracting lots of visitors and participants to propagate your ideas, you have to follow sound PR principles, or otherwise its effect may well end up being counter-productive.
What are the scenarios where someone unfamiliar with this website would hear about Roko's deleted post?
I suppose it could be written about dramatically (because it was dramatic!) but I don't think anyone is going to publish such an account. It was bad from the perspective of most LWers -- a heuristic against censorship is a good heuristic.
This whole thing is ultimately a meta discussion about moderation policy. Why should this discussion about banned topics be that much interesting than a post on Hacker News that is marked as dead? Hacker News generally doesn't allow discussion of why stories were marked dead. The moderators are anonymous and have unquestioned authority.
If Less Wrong had a mark as dead function (on HN unregistered users don't see dead stories, but registered users can opt-in to see them), I suspect Eliezer would have killed Roko's post instead of deleting it to avoid the concerns of censorship, but no one has written that LW feature yet.
As a solid example of what a not-PR disaster it was, I doubt that anyone at the Singularity Summit that isn't a regular Less Wrong reader (the majority of attendees) has heard that Eliezer deleted a post. It's just not the kind of thing that actually makes a PR disaster... honestly if this was a PR issue it might be a net positive because it would lead some people to hear of LW that otherwise would never have heard of Less Wrong. Please don't take that as a reason to make this a PR issue.
Eliezer succeeded in the sense that it is very unlikely that people in the future on Less Wrong are going to make stupid emotionally abhorrent posts about weird decision theory torture scenarios. He failed in that he could have handled the situation better.
If anyone would like to continue talking about Less Wrong moderation policy, the place to talk about it is the Meta Thread (though you'd probably want to make a new one (good for +[20,50] karma!) instead of discussing it in an out of season thread)
As someone who had over 20 points of karma obliterated for reasons I don't fully understand, for having posted something which apparently strayed too close to a Roko post which I never read in its full version, I can attest that further and broader discussion of the moderation policy would be beneficial. I still don't really know what happened. Of course I have vague theories , and I've received a terse and unhelpful response from EY (a link to a horror story about a "riddle" which kills - a good story which I simply don't accept as a useful parable of reality), but nothing clear. I do not think that I have anything of outstanding value to offer this community, but I suspect that Roko, little I, and the half-dozen others like us which probably exist, are a net loss to the community if driven away, especially if not being seen as cultlike is valuable.
I believe you lost 20 karma because you had 2 net downvotes on your post at the time it was deleted (and those votes still affect your total karma, although the post cannot be further upvoted or downvoted). The loss of karma did not result directly from the deletion of the post, except for the fact that the deletion froze the post’s karma at the level it was at when it was deleted.
I only looked briefly at your post, don’t remember very much about it, and am only one reader here, but from what I recall, your post did not seem so obviously good that it would have recovered from those two downvotes. Indeed, my impression is that it’s more probable that if the post had been left up longer, it would have been even more severely downvoted than it was at the time of deletion, as is the case with the many people’s first posts. I’m not very confident about that, but there certainly would have been that risk.
All that being said, I can understand if you would rather have taken the risk of an even greater hit to karma if it would have meant that people were able to read and comment on your post. I can also sympathize with your desire for a clearer moderation policy, although unless EY chose to participate in the discussion, I don’t think clearer standards would emerge, because it’s ultimately EY’s call whether to delete a post or comment. (I think there are a couple others with moderation powers, but it’s my understanding that they would not independently delete a non-troll/spam post).
I think it was 30 karma points (3 net downvotes), though I'm not sure. And I believe that it is entirely possible that some of those downvotes (more than 3, because I had at least 3 upvotes) were for alleged danger, not for lack of quality. Most importantly, if the post hadn't been deleted, I could have read the comments which presumably would have given me some indication of the reason for those downvotes.