Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

wedrifid comments on Building Weirdtopia - Less Wrong

28 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 12 January 2009 08:35PM

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

Comments (303)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: wedrifid 17 December 2010 02:00:48AM 2 points [-]

Sure, if they are into that sort of thing I don't particularly care. That said it isn't a right that I'm excessively enamored with. If the superhappys were going to remove our ability to have our hearts broken I wouldn't blow up earth to prevent it.

Comment author: xxd 14 December 2011 11:57:24PM 0 points [-]

Wow. I wonder what you are so afraid of... I've had my heart broken multiple times and it's not pleasant to be sure but it's hardly the end of the world. I actually am glad to have had the experiences though I wasn't at the time.

I have also been tortured a la marathon man and that also was seriously unpleasant but although even re-imagining it sends shudders down my spine I am also glad to have it.

But here's a question for you to consider: What if I had control over the AI and I decided that everyone were to be forced to go through physical painful torture AND have their hearts broken multiple times?

Pretty sure you would disagree strongly with that idea but I disagree strongly with the idea of my ability to have my heart broken AND/OR tortured removed.

Basically what I'm saying is that what a single individual thinks is right for everyone might not necessarily be so...

I'd go for a one-simulation-per-person scenario as being best fit where everyone gets some control over their choice of simulation...

Comment author: wedrifid 15 December 2011 06:00:31AM 0 points [-]

Wow. I wonder what you are so afraid of... I've had my heart broken multiple times and it's not pleasant to be sure but it's hardly the end of the world.

Nothing in Wedrifid_2010's comment seems to indicate fear. You seem to be replying to a straw man.

Comment author: xxd 15 December 2011 05:53:26PM 0 points [-]

If it's not fear what is your objection to having your heart broken? And how can you possibly take upon yourself the right to decide for everybody else?

Comment author: wedrifid 15 December 2011 06:18:29PM *  0 points [-]

If it's not fear what is your objection to having your heart broken?

The same objection I have to someone cutting off my little toe. It is painful and means that I'll forever be missing a part of myself. Not a big deal - just a minor to moderate negative outcome.

And how can you possibly take upon yourself the right to decide for everybody else?

You are responding to a straw man again - and I am rather surprised that you have been rewarded for doing so since it is rather insulting to attribute silly beliefs to people without cause. This is a complete reversal of what Wedrifid_2010 said. He vehemetly rejected thepokeduck's proposal that everyone should have their heart broken - because he found the idea of someone deciding that everyone else should have their heart broken abhorrent and presumptive.

Then, in the very comment you replied to, Wedrifid_2010 said:

Sure, if they are into that sort of thing I don't particularly care.

That is explicitly declaring no inclination toward controlling other people's self-heart-breaking impulses.

Comment author: xxd 15 December 2011 08:26:36PM 0 points [-]

You're deliberately ignoring this comment of yours: "If the superhappys were going to remove our ability to have our hearts broken I wouldn't blow up earth to prevent it."

You are therefore at least slightly in favor of controlling other people and many would interpret your tongue-in-cheek comment to say you support it.

Comment author: wedrifid 15 December 2011 08:32:53PM *  0 points [-]

You are therefore at least slightly in favor of controlling other people

What the? No. "Would not blow up the earth to prevent it" doesn't mean "slightly in favor". That's as absurd as saying "greater than negative twenty million" necessarily means "slightly positive".

EDIT: Ok, me getting downvoted I can understand - someone has been mass dowvnvoting me across the board. But xxd has been upvoted here. This makes no sense! I'd better stop responding on this subject.

Comment author: thomblake 15 December 2011 08:49:43PM 1 point [-]

I've been very confused by the exchange as well. I can't imagine how xxd could be honestly misunderstanding what you said so badly, and I assumed they are trolling and would be downvoted accordingly. Maybe sockpuppetry is at work?

Comment author: dlthomas 15 December 2011 09:12:01PM *  0 points [-]

Maybe sockpuppetry is at work?

Who has (read) access to the "who up-/downvoted what?" portion of the database? This might well be something easy to verify, and if so it may be something for a mod to squash.

Comment author: dlthomas 15 December 2011 08:54:11PM 2 points [-]

How is it inconsistent to object to taking away everybody else's choice whether they live or die more strongly than one objects to taking away everybody else's choice whether they can experience heartbreak?

Comment author: ponsegorro 15 December 2011 09:33:50PM *  0 points [-]

Not sure