= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
mwaser comments on Yet Another "Rational Approach To Morality & Friendly AI Sequence" - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (59)
I never said I wanted to be safe. Please reread what I said.
Lurking until you truly get what's going on around you is not the most effective (rational) way to learn. I can provide you a boatload of references supporting that if you wish.
Do you really want subpar newbies who will accept such irrationality just to maintain your peace and quiet? Particularly when a playground option is suggested? You could even get volunteers and never deal with the hassle.
Premise: It's more rational for your goals, to just ignore a good rational proposal from an erring, annoying newbie who is trying to provide access to new resources for you (both newbies and structures for their care and feeding).
I just don't get that.
Please taboo "rational". It's generally a good idea for this word.
Edit: Interestingly, exactly the same thing irked Alicorn, apparently independently.
I invite you to try to re-write this comment without the word "rationality" or its cousins.
Is effective a cousin? I suspect so since the easiest way to rewrite it would be to simply replace rational with effective. If not, assume that my rewrite simply does that. If so, can I get a motivation for the request? I'm not sure where you're going or why "cousins" are disallowed.
By "cousins" I meant "rational", "irrational", "rationality", "irrationality", etcetera. "Effective" is not technically a cousin, but any form of search-and-replace would not be in keeping with the spirit of the exercise. Since you are confused, I will go into more detail, but I am nearing the last straw in trying to deal with you and won't extend the courtesy again.
Do you mean: Lurking is slow compared to other strategies, lurking gets worse results for the newbie, lurking is worse for the rest of the community, lurking is inefficient, lurking fails altogether at achieving the objective, or something else?
This is meaningless until you explain the assertion you offer to support.
Nope. That doesn't sound appealing at all. I would rather have zero subpar newbies, and instead of peace and quiet I want lively and productive signal with minimal noise. Also, "such irrationality" is presumptuous. Weren't you going on about how LW is actually governed by structures and rules that you now understand that only look irrational? Where did that go?
Interestingly, your "option" is not so obviously and blindingly brilliant that I could only reject it as the solution to all my problems through sheer bloodymindedness. I don't actually want LW to be attached to a rock-bottom-standards blog with a similar color scheme that purports to funnel newbies into the real deal. I think that would be bad. Yes, even if I never have to look directly at it without a pinhole camera and even if it's minded by volunteers.
If you were demonstrating actual understanding of any relevant concepts... or if you were offering to personally do some work for the site instead of just throwing around vague plans for its expansion and calling it the provision of "access"... or if your proposal were actually good or "rational"... or, I'll admit it, if you weren't so annoying... then you'd be getting a better reception. This is, of course, a counterfactual.
I meant lurking is slow, lurking is inefficient, and a higher probability that it gets worse results for the newbie. I'm not sure which objective is being referred to in that clause. I retract those evaluations as flawed.
Yeah, I made the same mistake twice in a row. First, I didn't get that I didn't get it. Then I "got it" and figured out some obvious stuff -- and didn't even consider that there probably was even more below that which I still didn't get and that I should start looking for (and was an ass about it to boot). What a concept -- I don't know what I don't know.
The playground option was an idiot idea. I actually figured out that I don't want to go there and stagnate before your comment. I've got this horrible mental image of me being that guy that whines in boot camp. Let me take a few days and come up with a good answer to one of your questions (once I've worked this through a bit more).
I'd say thank you and sorry for being an ass but I'm not sure of its appropriateness right now. (Yeah, that <humility> tag is still really messing with me ;-)
ETA: Still re-calibrating. Realizing I'm way too spoiled about obtaining positive feedback . . . . ;-) EDIT: Make that addicted to obtaining positive feedback and less accepting of negative feedback that I don't immediately understand than I prefer to realize (and actually commenting on the first part seems to immediately recurse into hilarity)