Pablo_Stafforini comments on Rationality Quotes May 2013 - Less Wrong

6 Post author: katydee 03 May 2013 08:02PM

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

Comments (387)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Pablo_Stafforini 03 May 2013 03:45:45PM *  0 points [-]

The Spanish flu of 1918 killed 25-50 million people. World War II killed 60 million people; 107 is the order of the largest catastrophes in humanity’s written history. Substantially larger numbers, such as 500 million deaths, and especially qualitatively different scenarios such as the extinction of the entire human species, seem to trigger a different mode of thinking—enter into a ‘separate magisterium’. People who would never dream of hurting a child hear of an existential risk, and say, ‘Well, maybe the human species doesn’t really deserve to survive.’

Eliezer Yudkowsky, ‘Cognitive Biases Potentially Affecting Judgement of Global Risks’, in Nick Bostrom and Milan M. Ćirković (eds.), Global Catastrophic Risks, Oxford, 2008, p. 114

Retracted because it violates the spirit of one of the section rules.

Comment author: Pablo_Stafforini 03 May 2013 09:00:51PM *  11 points [-]

Can someone explain to me what is going on here? The comment is getting downvoted and Eliezer himself is telling me not to quote him (or so it appears--it's not clear whether he is being serious or not). Before deciding to post the comment, I read the instructions closely and it seemed clear that the quote--which comes from a published book, not from LW, OB, or HPMoR--didn't violate any of the rules. Maybe this is all obvious to those who post regularly on this section, but I am myself rather puzzled by the whole thing.

Comment author: wedrifid 04 May 2013 02:08:13AM *  14 points [-]

Can someone explain to me what is going on here?

You have the honour to have provoked the introduction of a new guideline (or a more explicit and precise modified version of an existing one). The norms shall henceforth be clearer to everyone. Bravo!

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 03 May 2013 09:20:26PM 11 points [-]

The spirit of the no-LW, OB, HPMoR rule is that the community shouldn't be quoting itself in quotes threads. That has a dangerous echo chamber-y feel to it.

Comment author: Pablo_Stafforini 03 May 2013 09:25:54PM *  3 points [-]

Thanks. I didn't perceive that this was the spirit of the rule precisely because it was explicitly restricted to apply to writings from certain websites and ebooks. If the purpose is to ban quotes by (past and present) members of LessWrong, why not simply write, "No quotes by past or present members of LessWrong"?

Comment author: arundelo 03 May 2013 09:43:56PM 7 points [-]

There's a family resemblance effect going on here. Since Eliezer is the founder of the site, quoting him violates the spirit of the rule more strongly than quoting off-site writings of other Less Wrongers.

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 03 May 2013 09:31:53PM 0 points [-]

Dunno. Maybe that's what it should be.

Comment author: shminux 03 May 2013 09:09:31PM *  0 points [-]

Just don't quote Eliezer and you should be safe. Better yet, don't quote any of the LW regulars, regardless of where you found the quote. If you want to share something they posted elsewhere, use the Open thread or create a Discussion post, if it's interesting enough and you have something to add to the quote.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 03 May 2013 08:01:37PM 2 points [-]

Thou shalt not quote Yudkowsky.

Comment author: jaibot 03 May 2013 08:34:18PM *  15 points [-]

...how are we supposed to tell people about this rule?

Edit: Aw, I thought it was funny.

Comment author: Nornagest 03 May 2013 09:04:35PM 4 points [-]

Ever played Mao?

Comment author: jaibot 03 May 2013 09:08:02PM 1 point [-]

Saying the name of the game ::gives card::

One of my fondest childhood memories.

Comment author: wedrifid 04 May 2013 02:04:03AM -1 points [-]

...how are we supposed to tell people about this rule?

"We don't put quotes from Eliezer in the Rationality Quotes thread" seems to work. Quoting the expression of an authority is a way to lend persuasiveness to your rule assertion but it is not intrinsic to the process of rule explaining.

I can tell people "Don't drive through intersections when the lights are red" and I'm telling someone about the rule without quoting anything.

Comment author: shminux 03 May 2013 08:13:50PM *  3 points [-]

Is this a trivial extension of

Current restrictions are "Do not quote from Less Wrong itself, Overcoming Bias, or HPMoR."

to include SI/MIRI stuff or a new commandment?

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 03 May 2013 08:25:45PM 8 points [-]

I think that the purpose of the current instruction is to refrain from quoting ourselves and each other. So I'd see it as a trivial extension to understand that Eliezer and other well-known members of the community should not be used for a source for quotes.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 03 May 2013 09:08:01PM 1 point [-]

Yep, that trivial extension one.

Comment author: Kawoomba 03 May 2013 09:11:16PM 6 points [-]

Thou shalt not quote Yudkowsky.

Understood.