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.

polymathwannabe comments on [LINK] Another "LessWrongers are crazy" article - this time on Slate - Less Wrong Discussion

9 Post author: CronoDAS 18 July 2014 04:57AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (129)

CC Licenced

Tags: pr basilisk media

Comments (129)

Sort By: Best

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

Comment author: [deleted] 18 July 2014 04:52:12PM 21 points [-]

This really is not a friendly civilization is it.

7 ideas that might cause you eternal torture, click now

Comment author: polymathwannabe comment score below threshold [+] (10 children)

Comment author: shminux 18 July 2014 06:40:22PM * 20 points [-]

If the fact is that The Basilisk wants to torture me, I want to believe that it wants to torture me.

WARNING: THE LITANY OF TARSKI IS NOT DESIGNED TO WORK INSIDE A FEEDBACK LOOP

In this example the basilisk will want to torture you only if you believe that it will want to torture you. "The fact" is not a fact until the loop is complete. Note that both alternatives are "facts", even though they appear mutually exclusive.

If the Basilisk wants to torture me, I want to believe that it wants to torture me. If the Basilisk does not want to torture me, I want to believe that it does not want to torture me.

Comment author: polymathwannabe 18 July 2014 06:42:05PM 7 points [-]

Interesting. I'll need to think about this.

Comment author: Pfft 18 July 2014 06:46:28PM * 14 points [-]

Or, alternatively, need to not think about this.

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 19 July 2014 05:57:26AM 5 points [-]

If we're talking about Langford-type basilisks, that's a reasonable position. But if you're claiming that no idea can cause disutility, I find that idea to be ridiculous. And you arguing against an idea on the basis that it would be insulting to humanity is rather ... ironic.

Comment author: Leonhart 20 July 2014 01:38:21PM 3 points [-]

Arguing that an idea could do harm by merely occupying space in a brain is a tremendous discredit to humanity.

This is such a Critical Empathy Fail that I can barely take you seriously. Here's a hint: original sin.

Comment author: polymathwannabe 20 July 2014 02:44:20PM * -1 points [-]

Not only is the original sin fictional evidence; its presupossitions about human nature are worthy of being taken far less seriously than my worst nonsense. The whole "things humans are not meant to know" theme goes too much beyond the necessary caution our flaws demand; it's blatantly misanthropic.

Comment author: RowanE 21 July 2014 02:26:10PM 4 points [-]

I don't think he's referring to the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, I think he's referring to the doctrine of original sin itself, which he's suggesting caused harm by occupying space in Christian brains.

Comment author: polymathwannabe 21 July 2014 04:49:14PM -1 points [-]

Although belief in the inherent brokenness of humanity is a poisonous meme that can, at its worst, make you hate yourself and mess with the happiness of others, I see it as different from a basilisk. You can still function and lead a goal-driven life while under the influence of religious dogma. It does not paralyze you with terror the way a basilisk is reputed to do.

Comment author: RowanE 22 July 2014 06:45:19PM 1 point [-]

Unless the definition of "actual harm" was meant to contain this sentiment, it's sufficient for a counterexample to the general point you expressed above to merely be an idea that causes harm by occupying space in a brain, regardless of whether it's a true basilisk or not.

Comment author: wedrifid 19 July 2014 12:25:54PM * 3 points [-]

I find belief in basilisks ridiculous.

I agree that many beliefs about basilisks are ridiculous. Especially beliefs about what the correct decisions to make are in response to various scenarios. It would be a mistake to not believe that there is a particular failure mode that an AI creating civilisation could have which resulted in scenarios referred to as Roko's Basilisk. It isn't even an all that remarkable or unusual failure mode. Just a particular instance of extorting those vulnerable to extortion in the name of "the greater good".

Arguing that an idea could do harm by merely occupying space in a brain is a tremendous discredit to humanity.

The mistake here is 'merely'. I can think of reasons why I would not want my covert assets to each have knowledge of all the other asset's false identities. The presence of that information could cause (allow) other agents to do harm. This isn't particularly different in means of action.

polymathwannabe comments on [LINK] Another "LessWrongers are crazy" article - this time on Slate - Less Wrong Discussion

Article Navigation

Comments (129)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Open Threads

Recent Rationality Diaries

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (129)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login