= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Alexandros comments on Ben Goertzel on Charity - 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 (74)
Your 'lessons learned' implies you do.
This is not news to anyone.
I don't think he was ever on their payroll, so 'worked for' is inaccurate. Also, he's still on their advisory board: http://singinst.org/aboutus/ourmission/ . Finally, OpenCog started from within SIAI as far as I know, and is still mentioned on the history page.
Fair enough.
To the point about my 'lessons'. It is what I inferred from talking to Goertzel. I still don't see what is wrong with that. If it annoys you too much let me know and I'll just remove that part.
I'm weary of apparently making people angry, so I'll apologize at this point and post any further exchanges and writings on my personal blog. I just don't want to spoil the fun for everyone else. My goal is to collect evidence on how to best contribute my time and money. I heard most of the arguments from within this community and I think it is essential to also listen to what other people have to say.
Finally, I believe there are serious problems with reputation systems in general and especially any negative incentive via downvotes. I feel that I can currently spend my time better doing other things than discussing that topic though. I am open for links to LW posts or studies that show that I am wrong and that reputation systems indeed do not harm honesty and diversity of tought. But since I'm not willing to discuss this I will shut up about any kind of voting behavior from now on.
Look, this isn't personal. I am sympathetic to your overall effort to gain a better understanding of SIAI's workings and how to contribute to existential risk in general, and talking to other experts can't be a bad idea. All I had to say is what I said in my first comment. I think that one of the best things we are supposed to do for each other here on LW is to correct each other's thinking when we make a unwarranted step. So don't remove parts to pacify me, as I have no anger to speak of. Only do so if you actually change your mind.
Facebook seem to share the latter attitude. However, here, here and here are a lot of people who disagree. Frankly, I'm with them.
On Facebook it doesn't matter, it will do a good job there and elsewhere. It matters if you seek truth.
I think we are at cross purposes. I was mostly talking about a dislike button. You seem to be back to the whole concept of a reputation system.
Reputation systems seem to be just generally good to me. How else are you supposed to automatically deal with spammers, flamers and other lowlife?
You seem more concerned with group-think and yes-men. Sure, but no big deal.
More reputation system would be better. Non-anonymous votes. Separate up and down vote counts. "Meh" button. Reputations for the posters themselves (rather than the sum of their comments). Comment like and dislike lists that can be made public. Vote annotations - so people can say why they voted. Killfiles that can be made public - etc.
Oh, yes, and while I am on the topic, let's not be faceless - bring on the http://en.gravatar.com/
Agreed, and I would add to that list a feature I've wanted to see for a long time on really large networks: complex filter criteria that support spreading activation networks of vote weight.
For example, a standard filter for "entries highly upvoted by people who tend to upvote the same kinds of things that i do, and/or highly downvoted by people who tend to downvote the kinds of things that I upvote," allowing a single system to support communities in strong disagreement with one another.
Relatedly, a spreading rule such that a new entry by a users whose entries I tend to rate highly inherits a high default rating, and therefore appears on my filters.
For example, a standard mechanism for "assemble a reading list with 30% things I would upvote for agreement, 65% things I would upvote for interest, and 5% things I would downvote for disagreement "
Etc.
Of course, someplace like LW is too small to need that sort of thing.
A recommendation system for comments would be fine. People who liked this comment also liked...
Discussion is probably about the number one collective intelligence app. FriendFeed and Google Wave didn't really make it - and commenting is currently a disaster. That needs fixing.
It is a matter of simple correctness. Even if Ben were a messiah and those were perfectly True beliefs they just don't follow from what you cited. You would have to learn them from something else.
What information I learnt from Ben's answer:
What I concluded:
Now you and other tell me those conclusions are incorrect. Can you elaborate?
No, I didn't. In fact for the purposes of the comment you are replying to I clearly and explicitly assumed them to be true for the purposes of the argument.