= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Douglas_Knight comments on A few remarks about mass-downvoting - 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 (87)
His assertion that there is no way to check seems to me a better outcome than these posts shouting into the wind that don't get any response.
But now that he made the particular comment, one could contact him to ask for an update, rather than a whole request.
Sure, expect that I didn't exactly believe him.. even more so in the light of the comment you highlighted..
Did he assert that, exactly? The comment you linked to sounds more like "it's difficult to check." Even that puzzles me, though. Is there a good reason for the powers that be at LessWrong not to have easy access to their own database?
My two paragraphs refer to two different things Eliezer said. The contrast is indicated by the word "but." Tenoke says that he asserted that, exactly. I assume Eliezer was just lying to get him to shut up.
There are a lot of reasons not to look directly at the database. But once the person wrote an acceptable query years ago, yes, it should be easy to just try it again.
Oh, I see now. But why would Eliezer do that? Makes me worry this is being handled less well than Eliezer's public statements indicate.