= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Emile comments on [LINK] Another "LessWrongers are crazy" article - this time on Slate - 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 (129)
Looks like a fairly standard parable about how we should laugh at academic theorists and eggheads because of all those wacky things they think. If only Less Wrong members had the common sense of the average Salon reader, then they would instantly see through such silly dilemmas.
Giving people the chance to show up and explain that this community is Obviously Wrong And Here's Why is a pretty good way to start conversations, human nature being what it is. An opportunity to have some interesting dialogues about the broader corpus.
That said, I am in the camp that finds the referenced 'memetic hazard' to be silly. If you are the sort of person who takes it seriously, this precise form of publicity might be more troubling for the obvious 'hazard' reasons. Out of curiosity, what is the fraction of LW posters that believes this is a genuine risk?
Vanishingly small - the post was deleted by Eliezer (was that what, a year ago? two?) because it gave some people he knew nightmares, but I don't remember anybody actually complaining about it. Most of the ensuing drama was about whether Eliezer was right in deleting it. The whole thing has been a waste of everybody's time and attention (as community drama over moderation almost always is).
'Moderation' was precisely the opposite of the response that occurred. Hysterical verbal abuse is not the same thing as deleting a post and mere censorship would not have created such a lasting negative impact. While 'moderator censorship' was technically involved the incident is a decidedly non-central member of that class.
Nearly four years ago to the day, going by RationalWiki's chronology.
Talking about it presumably makes it feel like a newer, fresher issue than it is.
Eliezer specifically denied the possibility of a basilisk, although no theory of acausal blackmail in reflective equilibrium exists yet.
Roko's post was deleted because of how people reacted to it, not because it was a real memetic hazard.
ETA: on a second review, that's the reason Yudkowsky gave after the fact. I'm not convinced it was his initial motivation.
Surely there's some non-zero possibility of acausal blackmail?
Well, I guess the standard caveat applies here: there's nothing that has really 0 chance of happening.
I don't know about, but if it turned out acausal blackmail was logically impossible, that would deserve a probability as small as we can allow ourselves.
Isn't this precisely what TDT solves?
I sincerely have no idea. I don't even know if TDT stands on its own as a completed theory.
Given that nobody else ever complained, AFAIK, it seem that he was the only person troubled by that post.
EDIT: not.
I got email from basilisk victims, as noted elsewhere in this thread (this is why I created the RW article, 'cos individual email doesn't scale).
Point taken.
I'd say it about as much of a risk as a self-loathing basilisk who punishes only people who supported its creation. It's wrong in the same way Pascal's Wager is wrong, with some extra creepiness added.