wedrifid comments on An argument against indirect normativity - Less Wrong

1 Post author: cousin_it 24 July 2013 06:35PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (25)

Comments (25)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: wedrifid 25 July 2013 12:35:50PM 1 point [-]

If you understand Paul's idea and understand basilisks, figuring out X should take you about five minutes (there's only one obvious way to combine the two ideas), so you might as well do it now.

I agree that X (as well as some related non-basilisk issues) are weaknesses of the indirect normative approach.

In conclusion, I'd like to ask Eliezer to rethink his position on secrecy. If more LWers understood basilisks, somebody might have come up with X earlier.

Unless I am mistaken about what you mean by X they did come up with X earlier. They just couldn't speak of it here at risk of provoking Yudkowskian Hysterics.

Comment author: cousin_it 25 July 2013 01:03:48PM 0 points [-]

Can you tell me who specifically came up with X and when? PM if you like.

Comment author: wedrifid 25 July 2013 07:15:22PM 0 points [-]

Can you tell me who specifically came up with X and when? PM if you like.

Just me specifically. But I had better put the disclaimer that I considered X' that seems to fit the censored context, assuming that I have correctly mapped Paul's 'indirect normativity' to my informal conception of the context. I am of course curious as to what specifically your X is. I am wary of assuming I correctly understand you---people misunderstand each other easily even when the actual arguments are overt. If you have written it up already would you mind PMing it?

Comment author: cousin_it 25 July 2013 08:00:50PM 0 points [-]

PM sent.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit