= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vaniver comments on Stupid Questions June 2015 - 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 (195)
So hello, I'm a first time poster here at LessWrong. I stumbled upon this site after finding out about a thing called Roko's Basilisk and I heard it's a thing over here. So, after doing a little digging I thought it would be fun to chat with some friends about my findings. However, I then proceeded to research a bit more and I found some publications with disturbing implications. So, my question is, while I understand that I shouldn't spread information about the concept; I gain that it is because of the potential torture anyone with a knowledge of the concept might undergo. But I found some places which insisted simply thinking about the concept is dangerous. I am only new to the concept, but could someone please explain to me why (apart from the potential torture aspect) it is so bad to share/discuss the concept? Also, I apologise very much in advance if I have broken some unspoken rule of LessWrong, but I feel that it is necessary for me to find out the 'truth' behind the matter so I know why it is so imperative (if it is indeed), to stop those I already informed of the concept from telling more people. Please help me out here, guys, I'm way out of my depth.
There's a class of concepts called "information hazards." Like any other hazard, they're something that, if handled without care, will cause damage to someone. But with chemicals or lasers or falling rocks, you can stick up signs and people can stay out of the location where the chemicals or lasers or falling rocks are; putting up signs for concepts is hard, because warning signs can be easily self-defeating. If you label something a "horror story," all you're saying is "here be scariness." If you start talking about exactly why a story is scary, then you run the risk of giving people nightmares.
And so the Basilisk is disallowed for roughly the same reasons that shock images are disallowed. (This specific idea has given people nightmares, but the consensus is that it doesn't work as a serious proposal.)