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.

evand comments on META: Deletion policy - Less Wrong Discussion

13 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 26 December 2012 01:46AM

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

Comments (91)

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

Comment author: evand 26 December 2012 03:38:59AM 6 points [-]

A true basilisk is not a mental health risk, or at least not only such. Whether one such has been found is a separate question (I lean toward no).

Comment author: [deleted] 27 December 2012 12:12:31AM 1 point [-]

IIRC, allegedly there were a few people with OCD having nightmares after reading that post by Roko.

Comment author: evand 27 December 2012 12:28:14AM 3 points [-]

My point was that it doesn't cause mental health problems, not that it can't trigger them. Perhaps that's a bad way to put it. If it does, there's something beyond the information hazard going on, either an existing problem being triggered, or a multiple hazard. As I understand it, a basilisk is hazardous because you know the argument, without it needing to corrupt your reasoning abilities. Roko's is alleged to be hazardous even to a rational agent. (I don't think it is, and I think censoring it prevents an interesting debate about why. I don't plan to say any more, given the existing censorship policies. If this is already too much, please let me know and I will edit accordingly.)

Comment author: Username 31 December 2012 04:59:04PM 0 points [-]

Quantum roulette is a possible candidate.