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.

CronoDAS comments on New censorship: against hypothetical violence against identifiable people - Less Wrong Discussion

22 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 23 December 2012 09:00PM

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

Comments (457)

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

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 24 December 2012 02:44:30AM 8 points [-]

It has a net negative effect because people then go around saying (this post will be deleted after policy implementation), "Oh, look, LW is encouraging people to commit suicide and donate the money to them." That is what actually happens. It is the only real significant consequence.

Now it's true that, in general, any particular post may have only a small effect in this direction, because, for example, idiots repeatedly make up crap about how SIAI's ideas should encourage violence against AI researchers, even though none of us have ever raised it even as a hypothetical, and so themselves become the ones who conceptually promote violence. But it would be nice to have a nice clear policy in place we can point to and say, "An issue like this would not be discussable on LW because we think that talking about violence against individuals can conceptually promote such violence, even in the form of hypotheticals, and that any such individuals would justly have a right to complain. We of course assume that you will continue to discuss violence against AI researchers on your own blog, since you care more about making us look bad and posturing your concern, than about the fact that you, yourself, are the one has actually invented, introduced, talked about, and given publicity to, the idea of violence against AI researchers. But everyone else should be advised that any such 'hypothetical' would have been deleted from LW in accordance with our anti-discussing-hypothetical-violence-against-identifiable-actual-people policy."

Comment author: CronoDAS 24 December 2012 03:01:58AM 3 points [-]

I wasn't thinking of SIAI as the charity.

Comment author: AdeleneDawner 24 December 2012 12:16:48PM 7 points [-]

Regardless of your intentions, I know of one person who somewhat seriously considered that course of action as a result of the post in question. (The individual in question has been talked out of it in the short term, by way of 'the negative publicity would hurt more than the money would help', but my impression is that the chance that they'll try something like that has still increased, probably permanently.)

Comment author: CronoDAS 25 December 2012 02:57:35AM 5 points [-]

[sincerity mode]So... is that a good thing, or a bad thing?[/sincerity mode]

In many circumstances, sacrificing one's own life in order to save others is considered a good thing, and people who do it are called "heroes". A famous example is the story of railroad engineer Casey Jones, who, after realizing that a collision with a stalled train was inevitable, chose to remain in the engine and slow his own train as much as possible, saving the rest of the passengers and crew at the cost of his own life.

"Really Extreme Altruism" (with the money going to one of GiveWell's top charities) isn't as dramatic as a "typical" real-life Heroic Sacrifice, but the outcome is the same: one person dies, a lot of other people live who would have otherwise died. It's the manner of the sacrifice (and the distributed, distant nature of the benefit) that makes it far more disturbing.

Comment author: spzx 25 September 2013 06:47:35AM *  0 points [-]

There should be a warning on the donate page: "For reasons of public relations, please refrain from donating and minimize your association with us if you are or may in the future become suicidal."

Of course, if I were, not being able to contribute would be one less reason to stick around. I could shop for some less controversial group to support (possibly one that indirectly helped SIAI/MIRI), but it wouldn't be quite as motivating or as obviously sufficient to offset the cost of living.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 24 December 2012 03:09:50AM 7 points [-]

This intention of yours is not transparent. Plus, they don't care.

Comment author: CronoDAS 25 December 2012 03:00:31AM 3 points [-]

I edited the original post to link to GiveWell's top charities list.