= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lessdazed comments on Q&A #2 with Singularity Institute Executive Director - 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 (47)
I see a problem with LW(don't know if you consider this part of SI) in that non-conforming comments are often downvoted, regardless of them being right or wrong. I think part of the blame is on that article by EY:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/c1/wellkept_gardens_die_by_pacifism/
My big concern: what safeguards are in place to distinguish those "weeds" that are real "weeds" from those that only look like "weeds" because they go against incorrect beliefs in LW? In other words, assuming that there are incorrect beliefs in LW/SI shouldn't there be more room to allow for contrarian POVs to be expressed?
It would be proper to say "how much" or similar rather than "if."