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.

Algernoq 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.

Comments (129)

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

Comment author: MrMind 18 July 2014 08:59:00AM *  1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: Algernoq 21 July 2014 02:51:56AM 2 points [-]

Eliezer specifically denied the possibility of a basilisk

Surely there's some non-zero possibility of acausal blackmail?

Comment author: MrMind 21 July 2014 07:10:06AM 1 point [-]

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.