You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

wedrifid comments on On Leverage Research's plan for an optimal world - Less Wrong Discussion

25 Post author: Mitchell_Porter 10 January 2012 09:49AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (87)
Tags: politics

Comments (87)

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

Comment author: wedrifid 10 January 2012 03:47:10PM *  1 point [-]

I wrote the comment so that SI can improve their public relations.

You are trolling Leverage because you have issues with SingInst? It just isn't ok to slander an organization like that based, from what I can tell, on the fact that there are social affiliations between Leverage and another group you disapprove of.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 10 January 2012 04:06:50PM 32 points [-]

I thought the point was that the comment showed how the arguments, which we've gotten used to and don't fully question anymore, would look ridiculous when applied in a different context. (It was a pretty effective demonstration for me - the same responses did look far less convincing when they were put in the mouth of Leverage Research people rather than LW users..)

Comment author: XiXiDu 10 January 2012 07:50:32PM 18 points [-]

I thought the point was that the comment showed how the arguments, which we've gotten used to and don't fully question anymore, would look ridiculous when applied in a different context. (It was a pretty effective demonstration for me - the same responses did look far less convincing when they were put in the mouth of Leverage Research people rather than LW users..)

Exactly right.

Some remarks:

  • I don't think the arguments LW/SI uses against its opponents are wrong but that reality is more complex than the recitation of a rationality mantra.
  • If you want to discuss or criticize people who are not aware of LW/SI then you should commit to an actual discussion rather than telling them that they haven't read the sequences.
  • There is no reason for outsiders to suspect that LW/SI has any authority when it comes to arguments about AI, quantum physics or whatever.
  • If you want to convince outsiders then you should ask them questions and voice your own opinion. You should not tell them that you have it all figured out and that they just have to read those blog posts you wrote.
  • You should not portray yourself as the single bright shining hope for the redemption of the humanities collective intellect. That's incredible arrogant and cultish.
  • You have to distill your subject matter and make it more palatable for the average person who really doesn't care about being part of the Bayesian in-crowd.
Comment author: XiXiDu 10 January 2012 04:16:12PM *  0 points [-]

You are trolling Leverage because you have issues with SingInst?

Could you please stop such accusations, it's becoming ridiculous. If you have nothing sensible to say then let the matter rest. Your main approach of gaining karma seems to be quantity rather than actual argumentation.

I was just making fun of the original post that described Leverage Research as "secular messianism". At the same time I was pointing out something important about how some behavior here could be perceived.

You seem to be the actual troll here who hides behind the accusation of trolling.

Comment author: wedrifid 10 January 2012 04:57:25PM 2 points [-]

You are trolling Leverage because you have issues with SingInst?

Could you please stop such accusations, it's becoming ridiculous.

The people being slandered here aren't just strangers on the internet - they are people I know. If I see them being misrepresented then of course I am going to object. I spent a week taking classes from Geoff and he most certainly has studied (and researched) psychology. Yet his company is portrayed here in the role of uneducated. And then, by way of justification, you say:

I wrote the comment so that SI can improve their public relations.

I most certainly am going to make accusations about that because it just isn't ok. You don't go around misrepresenting the qualifications and credibility Leverage Research just because you have an issue with the Singularity Institute.

Comment author: jmmcd 14 January 2012 04:53:29AM 4 points [-]

There's only one way I was able to interpret XiXiDu's top comment (the one you link to), and that was as a satire of responses to his many previous questions about SIAI. I can't read it as a slander against Leverage at all. To me, this thread is roughly equivalent to attacking Jonathan Swift for his policy of baby-eating.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit