= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gwern comments on [LINK] Nick Szabo: Beware Pascal's Scams - 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 (82)
It's not an argument and it's opposite. One of the assumptions in either argument is 'opposite', that could make distinction between those two assumptions irrelevant but the arguments themselves remain very relevant.
I take as other alternatives everyone who could of worked on AI risk but didn't, because I consider it to be an alternative not to work on AI risk now. Some other people take as other alternatives people working on precisely the kind of AI risk reduction that SI works on. In which case the absence of alternatives - under this meaning of 'alternatives' - is evidence against SI's cause - against the idea that one should work on such AI risk reduction now. There should be no way how you can change - against same world - meanings of the words and arrive at different conclusion; it only happens if you are exercising in the rationalization and rhetoric. In electromagnetism if you are to change right hand rule to left hand rule every conclusion will stay the same; in reasoning if you wiggle what is 'alternatives' that should not change the conclusion either.
This concludes our discussion. Pseudologic derived from formal maxims and employing the method of collision (like in this case, colliding 'assumption' with 'argument') is too annoying.
I hope you don't mind if I don't reply to you any further until it's clear whether you're a Dmytry sockpuppet.
If an account isn't actualy Dmytry but instead just someone who thinks the same way that Dmytry does there seems we can just treat them the same way anyhow. After all, ten people who act like Dmytry seems just as bad as Dmytry with ten accounts.
They could just think the same way and be borrowing vocabulary and ideas without actually being as bad as him.
So the choice then would be whether to give the potential sockpuppet the benefit of the doubt and allow treatment of them to asymptotically approach the treatment of known Dmytry accounts to the extent that and for as long as they make Dmytry-like posts and for as long as it looks like the comments could be anomalies. ie. There is the expectation of either a regression to the mean or that an actual new user will be capable of learning from feedback.
If it is assumed that the accounts are sockpuppets then they immediately get treated without the benefit of doubt and with the additional loading penalty given to sockpuppets for being sockpuppets.
And also similar issues with English as a second language. I agree it's Dmytry, but not a sockpuppet. He didn't go to great lengths to hide that he was private_messaging. The new JaneQ account posted some posts (as opposed to comments), thanks to its positive karma balance. I figure that Dmytry wanted to make a post, so created a new account without huge negative karma (and thus be able to post). I.e. I think he's just trying to circumvent the karma system, not deceive people.
"Just".
People are welcome to abandon an account when they realize they have irrevocably destroyed their reputation and wish to start again and try not being an asshat. They are not welcome to use multiple accounts to subvert the karma system.
Please review the context. You will notice that gwern is arguing with two 'people' in this discussion. Both of them, by your own prediction, are Dmytry. Using multiple accounts to support each other in a single argument is exactly what 'sockpuppetry' is all about. To put it mildly: I don't like it.