= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
pinyaka comments on Open thread, July 29-August 4, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (381)
You are using basilisk in a manner that I don't understand. I assume you're not asking if anyone has a lizard that will literally turn you into stone, so what does basilisk mean in this context?
Memetic/Information Hazards - the term comes from here. Basically anything that makes you significantly worse off after you know it than before. Giving someone wrong instructions for how to build a bomb wouldn't count for example as I can just never build a bomb or just use other instructions etc.
Warning: Could be dangerous to look into it
They really should be called Medusas -- since it's you looking at them, not them looking at you.
I think they both need to make eye contact.
Yup, Medusa is what some blogposts use to describe them.
Which blogposts are these?
Do you of anyone claiming to be in possession of such a fact?
Eliezer is in possession of a fact that he considers to be highly dangerous to anyone who knows it, and who does not have sufficient understanding of exotic decision theory to avoid being vulnerable to it. This is the original basilisk that drew LessWrong's attention to the idea. Whether he is right is disputed (but the disputation cannot take place here).
In HPMOR, he has fictionally presented another basilisk: Harry cannot tell some other wizards, including Dumbledore, about the true Patronus spell, because that knowledge would render them incapable of casting the Patronus at all, leaving them vulnerable to having their minds eaten by Dementors.
I know some basilisks, yes. Although, there is nothing I regard as actually dangerous. However, sharing things like this publicly is considered bad etiquette on LessWrong.
If it's not dangerous, how does it constitute a hazard?
Can you send me yours? Please PM me here or on IRC. I already know the most famous one here.
I tried to rot13 my previous discussion and was only mocked. The attitude towards basilisks seems to be one of glib reassurance.
Not just glib reassurance. There is also the outright mockery of those who advocate taking (the known pseudo-examples of) them seriously.
I can't imagine that anyone is advocating taking them seriously.
I know one.
Also I think you're missing the word "know"