= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JoshuaZ comments on Rationality Quotes October 2011 - 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 (532)
The first two quotes seem like things that Eliezer would actually agree with. But I'm substantially less convinced about the others.
I feel very confident about the first three. Less so about the last two, but I still feel like he generally would agree with them. If that's not the general consensus though, (Judging by the downvotes, it isn't) I'll change the attributions.
This raises an interesting question though: when is it appropriate to attribute it to the author? The most obvious example I can think of would be John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged - surely it's reasonable to attribute that to Rand: it's practically a nonfiction essay slapped in the middle of a book. Less ambiguous though: what about the words of a narrator? (I have a quote by Virginia Woolfe that was said by the narrator) Should that be attributed to the author? What if the narrator is a character in the story (Camus, The Plague, another one of my quotes)?
This seems like an obvious case where you should have a policy of always doing X, even if not-X was right most of the time, because not-X will occasionally be wrong and cause harm while there's no harm in doing X.
In other words, you should always have a (character, work, author) attribution, or (work, author) if it's said by the narrator. There's no reason to not do it, and an obvious reason why you should do it (because you will be wrong from time to time).
Why do you say (work, author) for a narrator? And what if the narrator is a character in the book, but technically not "speaking" at the time?
And I think there is an obvious reason - namely that more attributions is more cumbersome and distracting, although I'm not sure that is a overly compelling reason.
Admittedly, in such a case attributing it to the author is more justified. But the author-as-the-narrator saying something still isn't necessarily the same thing as the author saying something: there is the technique of an unreliable narrator, for instance.
The narrator can also have a personality that's distinct from the author's, even a personality that the author would personally find repulsive. I wouldn't like it if people attributed what I wrote in Musings of a Vampire to me without clarifying that these aren't actually my views.
I'm not sure what you mean. Example?
In The Plague, by Camus, the narrator is the protagonist of the story, which isn't revealed until the end.
In To the Lighthouse, by Virginia Woolfe, the narrator is continually shifting between all of the main characters.
In those cases, (work, author) and (character, work, author) would both be fine. The main thing is making clear that these aren't necessarily the views of the author.
Never. It's fiction, so you should never attribute a quote from there to a real person. Never, never, never.
You should never attribute mention in a way that implies use - but you should still attribute it as mention.
That confuses me, as I tend to think of attribution as a way of giving credit where credit is due, and the author is the one who strung together those particular words, regardless of any endorsement.
"Blah blah bluh"- Fictional Character in Work of Fiction by Author's Name
(Not that you didn't already know that)
Yes, that's the sort of attribution I was thinking of.
"Strung together those particular words, regardless of any endorsement" might work in a universe where words are strung together only for the pretty sound they make, not for their meaning.
If you attribute artistry correctly and end up misattributing the meaning, you're effectively lying about the author, no matter what your actual intentions are.
What is so hard about attributing the words to a work, and attributing the work to the author? Do we really need to debate the virtues of being clear and not misleading people?
Aha, I thought you were saying that a quote from a work of fiction should not be attributed to its author at all, which is what I took issue with. Clearly it makes sense to do so by way of the work, possibly taking pains to point out that it was from a work of fiction.
The third quote might be something Eliezer would agree about in the context of Malfoy in particular. The quote in a more general context is much more problematic. How many violent extremist groups would agree that the deaths they cause are sad? I'm not sure Eliezer expects to come to terms with them except in some very abstract far setting after some AGI has implemented some form of CEV or something like that.
All the questions you raise can be easily handled by simply quoting all the potentially relevant information. When in doubt, supply more, not less information.
Less effective, less harmful, and most importantly with the least painful transitions of power - this is modern Western democracy. It's not half bad! Four out of five stars and one thumb up.
What that quote always reminded me of was OBL, but you have a good point, it could easily be used as a rationalization by other groups.