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.

Comments (125)

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

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?