multifoliaterose comments on Transparency and Accountability - Less Wrong

16 Post author: multifoliaterose 21 August 2010 01:01PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (141)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: multifoliaterose 23 August 2010 11:35:02PM 6 points [-]

Much of what you say here sounds quite reasonable. Since many great scientists have lacked social grace, it seems to me that your PR difficulties have no bearing on your ability to do valuable research.

I think that the trouble arises from the fact that people (including myself) have taken you to be an official representative of SIAI. As long as SIAI makes it clear that your remarks do not reflect SIAI's positions, there should be no problem.

Comment author: wedrifid 24 August 2010 12:49:12AM 6 points [-]

Much of what you say here sounds quite reasonable. Since many great scientists have lacked social grace, it seems to me that your PR difficulties have no bearing on your ability to do valuable research.

There is an interesting question. Does it make a difference if one of the core subjects of research (rationality) strongly suggests different actions be taken and the core research goal (creating or influencing the creation of an FAI) requires particular standards in ethics and rationality? For FAI research behaviours that reflect ethically relevant decision making and rational thinking under pressure matter.

If you do research into 'applied godhood' then you can be expected to be held to particularly high standards.

Comment author: multifoliaterose 24 August 2010 04:03:52AM 6 points [-]

Yes, these are good points.

What I was saying above is that if Eliezer wants to defer to other SIAI staff then we should seek justification from them rather than from him. Maybe they have good reasons for thinking that it's a good idea for him to do FAI research despite the issue that you mention.

Comment author: wedrifid 24 August 2010 04:17:07AM 2 points [-]

I understand and I did vote your comment up. The point is relevant even if not absolutely so in this instance.