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.

RobbBB comments on A few misconceptions surrounding Roko's basilisk - Less Wrong Discussion

39 Post author: RobbBB 05 October 2015 09:23PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (125)
Tags: roko blackmail roko's basilisk

Comments (125)

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

Comment author: RobbBB 07 October 2015 07:17:53AM *  2 points [-]

Sorry, I'll be more concrete; "there's a serious risk" is really vague wording. What would surprise me greatly is if I heard that Eliezer assigned even a 5% probability to there being a realistic quick fix to Roko's argument that makes it work on humans. I think a larger reason for the ban was just that Eliezer was angry with Roko for trying to spread what Roko thought was an information hazard, and angry people lash out (even when it doesn't make a ton of strategic sense).

Comment author: anon85 07 October 2015 05:23:17PM 1 point [-]

Probably not a quick fix, but I would definitely say Eliezer gives significant chances (say, 10%) to there being some viable version of the Basilisk, which is why he actively avoids thinking about it.

If Eliezer was just angry at Roko, he would have yelled or banned Roko; instead, he banned all discussion of the subject. That doesn't even make sense as a "slashing out" reaction against Roko.

Comment author: RobbBB 07 October 2015 05:41:52PM 0 points [-]

It sounds like you have a different model of Eliezer (and of how well-targeted 'lashing out' usually is) than I do. But, like I said to V_V above:

According to Eliezer, he had three separate reasons for the original ban: (1) he didn't want any additional people (beyond the one Roko cited) to obsess over the idea and get nightmares; (2) he was worried there might be some variant on Roko's argument that worked, and he wanted more formal assurances that this wasn't the case; and (3) he was just outraged at Roko. (Including outraged at him for doing something Roko thought would put people at risk of torture.)

The point I was making wasn't that (2) had zero influence. It was that (2) probably had less influence than (3), and its influence was probably of the 'small probability of large costs' variety.

Comment author: anon85 08 October 2015 02:23:13AM 1 point [-]

I don't know enough about this to tell if (2) had more influence than (3) initially. I'm glad you agree that (2) had some influence, at least. That was the main part of my point.

How long did discussion of the Basilisk stay banned? Wasn't it many years? How do you explain that, unless the influence of (2) was significant?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit