= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on SotW: Check Consequentialism - 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 (311)
Well, and now the question "How can we teach the skill Check Consequentialism?" has degenerated into an erudite debate on pirates vs. ninjas.
I have never, ever been tempted to say this before on LW but WELCOME TO REDDIT.
Edit: The conversation seems much more intelligent than average Reddit, but I still think we're solving the wrong problem here.
Edit 2: And now, no longer feeling as encouraged by the 150 comments I saw when I checked back in.
On the plus side, I'll concede we've demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that "pirates vs. ninjas" can be an argument -generator for all audiences.
puh-lease. There were pirates vs. ninjas debates on the Internet long before Reddit existed.
You happen to have carved out a small portion of the Internet, a medium that aside from porn is primarily for pirates vs. ninjas debates, and declared it's for some other purpose. That doesn't mean you're allowed to be surprised when pirates vs. ninjas debates happen.
And this site's software based on Reddit. Is "WELCOME TO REDDIT" even worth saying when there's a "powered by reddit" icon on the bottom-right of the site?
Now, back to the local version of pirates-vs-ninjas, which sometimes looks deceptively like discussion of rationality...
Is he allowed to be surprised when lesswrong porn happens?
I think porn itself has somehow managed to stay off Less Wrong long enough to warrant surprise.
But no, it's not warranted to believe that porn about Less Wrong does not exist. Rule 34.
I've joked in the past about writing YudkowskyxBostrom slash fics; I swear to Bayes, if people keep annoyingly discussing LW porn, I will write it!
Please include a threesome with Vassar.
Pass the brain bleach.
I'd write it, but I'm too busy working on that fic where Harry has to marry Draco to save someone from Azkaban.
Corollary to Rule 35. You have to now.
It's not porn, but did you see Yvain's drawing?
Thanks, I hadn't seen that. Though for maximal thread derailment, the image really should've appeared right in your comment.
Are you trying to spoil our fun?
Besides, it's not like we're having really ridiculous thread-derailing discussions. It's not like anyone's tried to claim something insane, like that Twilight Sparkle is the best pony, or a plane on a treadmill will be able to take off, or that billy goats are not delicious.
I know you are mostly just building up to a "Twilight Sparkle" joke but I'm going to express agreement with this anyway. The main way that this thread has gone off topic is in as much as the skill that daenyrs is testing and training isn't 'consequentialism' it is a different rationalist skill.
Reading this prompted me to ask myself a similar question:
Could wind powered plane on the ground traveling directly downwind take off? My answer is yes, and science is awesome! but I expect I'd get into arguments about it with even my educated friends who would say "no".
Perhaps even better, a wind-powered car can travel faster than the wind downwind! link
This seems to imply that you have some other mechanism for the plane to take off than by harnessing that very mechanism with enough efficiency and elegance that it can generate lift to take off engine free, powered by wind, with the direct force of the wind actually counting against it. Either that or you evaluate engineering coolness very differently.