I'm glad we're now in the same context.
Would you agree or disagree that no matter what anybody had proposed as a potential way of gauging moral progress, you most likely would have disagreed with it, and there most likely would have been the potential for practically endless debate?
What would be most constructive is to be told "Here is this other ideal against which to gauge progress that would be a better choice." What I feel like I'm being told, instead, is "This is not perfect." That is a given, and it's not useful.
I would earnestly like to know whether humanity has made progress. If you want to have that discussion with me, would you mind contributing to the continuation of the conversation instead of merely kicking the conversation down?
Would you agree or disagree that no matter what anybody had proposed as a potential way of gauging moral progress, you most likely would have disagreed with it
I disagree with that hypothesis. I further note that I evaluate claims about value metrics "if taken to the extreme" differently to proposals advocating a metric to be used for a given purpose. In the latter case I consider whether it will be useful, in the former case I actually consider the extremes. In a forum where issues like lost purpose and the complexity and fragility of value ar...
Ever since Eliezer, Yvain, and myself stopped posting regularly, LW's front page has mostly been populated by meta posts. (The Discussion section is still abuzz with interesting content, though, including original research.)
Luckily, many LWers are posting potentially front-page-worthy content to their own blogs.
Below are some recent-ish highlights outside Less Wrong, for your reading enjoyment. I've added an * to my personal favorites.
Overcoming Bias (Robin Hanson, Rob Wiblin, Katja Grace, Carl Shulman)