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.

pedanterrific comments on Elevator pitches/responses for rationality / AI - Less Wrong Discussion

17 Post author: lukeprog 02 February 2012 08:35PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (68)
Tags: rationality ai

Comments (68)

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

Comment author: 911truther 03 February 2012 02:44:21AM 1 point [-]

To save you some time: the standard response is "I'm being censored! You're an Eliezer-cult! All these downvotes are just because you're scared of the Truth!".

I never said anything like this and I never invoked Eleizer. I don't understand why you're telling me off for something I didn't do. Look at my post history if you don't trust me.

What you are doing is not fitting into the community norms of discussion, like research and linking/referring to specific sources

It only makes sense to do so when making a claim. Yet people on this site have refused to back up their own claims with citations because apparently "I'm not worth bothering with".

but there are almost never flame wars

I never flamed anyone. The only guy who is calling people names "like troll for example" is you (well now that you've done it others are following your lead too, well done..).

Are you enjoying wasting your time on this website?

Not really, I didn't expect to get rejected so harsly. I've read all the sequences twice and been rational for years so I don't know what the problem is. What's the point of all this meta discussion, why is everyone trying to drag me into these metadiscussions and brand me as a troll after I passed 100 downvotes. We should get back onto the actual topic.

You are trying to submit too fast. try again in 6 minutes.

Comment author: pedanterrific 03 February 2012 05:19:28PM 7 points [-]

Yet people on this site have refused to back up their own claims with citations because apparently "I'm not worth bothering with".

I found this claim difficult to believe, so I looked it up. For the record:

911truther: Freezing things makes water expand and burst the fragile parts of your brain.

gwern: Freezing canard: proof you have not read the cryonics literature. Instant downvote.

911truther: If "the cryonics literature" (presumably explaining why freezing does not destroy the brain) actually exists why don't you link to it?

gwern: Because spending the time to look up references solid enough that they cannot be glibly rejected indicates that I think someone is worth educating, that I can educate them, or it's a sign of respect.

None of those three are true. So if you think you are right, you are free to bring your own references to the table.

Comment author: praxis 05 February 2012 12:47:31AM *  5 points [-]

I do wish we could discourage the attitude displayed here by gwern. It's pure ego to respond in this way to someone you deem a "troll". It certainly won't change their mind, and it will only spur them to comment more. Either ignore them completely after downvoting, or be polite in your reply. One might justify these posts as important to make sure that 911truther knows why he's being downvoted, but the aggression in them is entirely counter-productive and, frankly, is quite rude.

For the record, I do think people are a little over-eager to accuse someone of being a "troll" (I think it is much more probable that 911truther is simply ignorant) although I think moderation is warranted in this case.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit