-
The world is locked right now in a deadly puzzle, and needs something like a miracle of good thought if it is to have the survival odds one might wish the world to have.
-
Despite all priors and appearances, our little community (the "aspiring rationality" community; the "effective altruist" project; efforts to create an existential win; etc.) has a shot at seriously helping with this puzzle. This sounds like hubris, but it is at this point at least partially a matter of track record.[1]
-
To aid in solving this puzzle, we must probably find a way to think together, accumulatively. We need to think about technical problems in AI safety, but also about the full surrounding context -- everything to do with understanding what the heck kind of a place the world is, such that that kind of place may contain cheat codes and trap doors toward achieving an existential win. We probably also need to think about "ways of thinking" -- both the individual thinking skills, and the community conversational norms, that can cause our puzzle-solving to work better. [2]
-
One feature that is pretty helpful here, is if we somehow maintain a single "conversation", rather than a bunch of people separately having thoughts and sometimes taking inspiration from one another. By "a conversation", I mean a space where people can e.g. reply to one another; rely on shared jargon/shorthand/concepts; build on arguments that have been established in common as probably-valid; point out apparent errors and then have that pointing-out be actually taken into account or else replied-to).
-
One feature that really helps things be "a conversation" in this way, is if there is a single Schelling set of posts/etc. that people (in the relevant community/conversation) are supposed to read, and can be assumed to have read. Less Wrong used to be a such place; right now there is no such place; it seems to me highly desirable to form a new such place if we can.
-
We have lately ceased to have a "single conversation" in this way. Good content is still being produced across these communities, but there is no single locus of conversation, such that if you're in a gathering of e.g. five aspiring rationalists, you can take for granted that of course everyone has read posts such-and-such. There is no one place you can post to, where, if enough people upvote your writing, people will reliably read and respond (rather than ignore), and where others will call them out if they later post reasoning that ignores your evidence. Without such a locus, it is hard for conversation to build in the correct way. (And hard for it to turn into arguments and replies, rather than a series of non sequiturs.)
If upvotes/downvotes are public, some people are going to reward/punish those who upvoted/downvoted them.
It can happen without full awareness... the user will simply notice that X upvotes them often and Y downvotes them often... they will start liking X and disliking Y... they will start getting pleasant feelings when looking at comments written by X ("my friend is writing here, I feel good") and unpleasant feelings when looking at comments written by Y ("oh no, my nemesis again")... and that will be reflected by how they vote.
And this is the charitable explanation. Some people will do this with full awareness, happy that they provide incentives for others to upvote them, and deterrence to those who downvote. -- Humans are like this.
Even if the behavior described above would not happen, people would still instinctively expect it to happen, so it would still have a chilling effect. -- On the other hand, some people might enjoy to publicly downvote e.g. Eliezer, to get contratian points. Either way, different forms of signalling would get involved.
From the view of game theory, if some people would have a reputation to be magnanimous about downvotes, and other people would be suspected of being vengeful about downvotes, people would be more willing to downvote the former, which creates incentives for passively aggressive behavior. (I am talking about a situation where everyone suspects that X downvotes those who downvoted him, but X can plausibly deny doing that, claiming he genuinely disliked all the stuff he downvoted, and you can either have an infinite debate about it with X acting outraged about unfair accusations, or just let it slide but still everyone knows that downvoting X is bad for their own karma.)
tl;dr -- the same reasons why the elections are secret
EDIT:
After reading Raemon's comment I am less sure about what I wrote here. I still believe that public upvotes and downvotes can cause unnecessary drama, but maybe that would still be an improvement over the situation when a reasonable comment gets 10 downvotes from sockpuppet accounts, or someone gets one downvote for each comment including those written years ago, and it is not clearly visible what exactly is happening unless moderators get involved (and sometimes not even then).
On the other hand, I believe that some content (too stupid, or aggressive) should be removed from the debate. Maybe not deleted completely, but at least hidden by default (such as currently the comments with karma -5 or less). But I agree that this should not apply to not-completely-insane comments posted by newbies in good faith. Such comments should be merely sorted to the bottom of the page. What should be removed is violations of community norms, and "spamming" (i.e. trying to win a debate by quantity of comments that don't bring new points, merely inflate the visibility of the already expressed ones).
At this moment I am imagining some kind of hybrid system, where upvotes (either private or public, no clear opinion on this yet) would be given freely, but downvotes could only be given for specific reasons (they would be equivalent to flagging) and in case of abuse the user could lose the ability to downvote (i.e. the downvotes would be either public, or at least visible to moderators).
And here is a quick fix idea: as the first step, make downvotes public for moderators. That would at least allow them to quickly detect and remove Eugine's sockpuppets. -- For example, moderator could have a new button below each comment, which would display the list of downvoters (with hyperlinks to their user pages). Also, make a script that reverts all votes given by a user, and make it easily accessible from the "banned users" admin page (i.e. it can only be applied to already banned users). To help other moderators spot possible abuse, the name of the moderator who started the script for a user could be displayed on the same admin page. (For extra precaution, the "revert all votes" button could be made inaccessible for the moderator who banned the user, so at least two moderators must participate at a vote purge.)