= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
David_Gerard comments on Possible Cockatrice in written form - 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 (53)
I don't think this post deserves the downvotes it's getting. The comments are better than the post, but I think that's productive for the discussion section.
As I've said in the comments, I consider how to deal with possible basilisks a real issue that rationalists really seriously need an approach to. A rationalism that fails to deal with possible basilisks ... fails.
(I don't consider the linked PDF worthy of being called a basilisk. But YMMV, of course.)
Edit: Actually, I agree with AndrewHickey - even if it's not a basilisk it deserves downvotes for dickishness, or close enough resemblance not to make effective difference.
I downvoted it because I would like to see fewer links to crackpot rants.
Your reason is also convincing. Though this crackpot rant does actually mention Eliezer, so might be considered slightly on-topic, or at least of interest.
In my case I downvoted because the author of the post considers it a basilisk. I'm not entirely convinced that basilisks exist in any real sense, and definitely agree with you that rationalists need an approach to them; but unless and until there is an approach, if you think some piece of information will cause illness or death (without positive results), it's morally wrong to share it. Thus, even though I think this 'basilisk' utterly harmless, I am not convinced all 'basilisks' are, and don't want people to keep posting things they consider harmful until there's a way of dealing with them. So on the basis of 'downvote if you want to see fewer posts like this' I downvoted.