= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
anon85 comments on A few misconceptions surrounding Roko's basilisk - 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 (125)
I'm not sure what your point is here. Would you mind re-phrasing? (I'm pretty sure I understand the history of Roko's Basilisk, so your explanation can start with that assumption.)
My point was that LWers are irrationally panicky about acausal blackmail: they think Basilisks are plausible enough that they ban all discussion of them!
(Not all LWers, of course.)
If you're saying 'LessWrongers think there's a serious risk they'll be acausally blackmailed by a rogue AI', then that seems to be false. That even seems to be false in Eliezer's case, and Eliezer definitely isn't 'LessWrong'. If you're saying 'LessWrongers think acausal trade in general is possible,' then that seems true but I don't see why that's ridiculous.
Is there something about acausal trade in general that you're objecting to, beyond the specific problems with Roko's argument?
It seems we disagree on this factual issue. Eliezer does think there is a risk of acausal blackmail, or else he wouldn't have banned discussion of it.
Sorry, I'll be more concrete; "there's a serious risk" is really vague wording. What would surprise me greatly is if I heard that Eliezer assigned even a 5% probability to there being a realistic quick fix to Roko's argument that makes it work on humans. I think a larger reason for the ban was just that Eliezer was angry with Roko for trying to spread what Roko thought was an information hazard, and angry people lash out (even when it doesn't make a ton of strategic sense).
Probably not a quick fix, but I would definitely say Eliezer gives significant chances (say, 10%) to there being some viable version of the Basilisk, which is why he actively avoids thinking about it.
If Eliezer was just angry at Roko, he would have yelled or banned Roko; instead, he banned all discussion of the subject. That doesn't even make sense as a "slashing out" reaction against Roko.
It sounds like you have a different model of Eliezer (and of how well-targeted 'lashing out' usually is) than I do. But, like I said to V_V above:
The point I was making wasn't that (2) had zero influence. It was that (2) probably had less influence than (3), and its influence was probably of the 'small probability of large costs' variety.
I don't know enough about this to tell if (2) had more influence than (3) initially. I'm glad you agree that (2) had some influence, at least. That was the main part of my point.
How long did discussion of the Basilisk stay banned? Wasn't it many years? How do you explain that, unless the influence of (2) was significant?
I believe he thinks that sufficiently clever idiots competing to shoot off their own feet will find some way to do so.
It seems unlikely that they would, if their gun is some philosophical decision theory stuff about blackmail from their future. I don't expect that gun to ever fire, no matter how many times you click the trigger.
That is not what I said, and I'm also guessing you did not have a grandfather who taught you you gun safety.