This page is meant to be inclusive, not exclusive--marginal casesthread has a more up-to-date list of criticism and criticism that doesn't seem well thought out should also be included. Direct responses to criticism should also be included when available.critiques.
This page is to collect links to criticism of what seems to be the ideas inprevailing view on Less Wrong regarding the possibility of sequenceshard takeoff and the importance of FAI. The purpose of doing this is to give readers the opportunity to hear both sides of the debate before making up their mind on controversial topics.
This page is meant to be inclusive, not exclusive--marginal cases of criticism and criticism that doesn't seem well thought out should also be included. If this gets to be too much of a problem, we can split the page into multiple sections. Direct responses to criticism should also be included when available.
You're strongly encouraged to add additional links and summarize existing ones. (Since the page is meant to be inclusive, it's okay to add links to things you haven't read.) Having these links sorted by persuasiveness could also be valuable.
This page is meant to be inclusive, not exclusive--marginal cases of criticism and criticism that doesn't seem well thought out should also be included. If this gets to be too much of a problem, we can split the page into multiple sections. Direct responses to criticism should also be included when available.
You're strongly encouraged to add additional links and summarize existing ones. (Since the page is meant to be inclusive, it's okay to add links to things you haven't read.) Having these links sorted by persuasiveness could also be valuable.
You're strongly encouraged to add additional links and summarize existing ones. Having these links sorted by persuasiveness could also be valuable.
This page is to collect links to criticism of the ideas in the Sequencessequences. The purpose of doing this is to give readers the opportunity to hear both sides of the debate before making up their mind on controversial topics.
This page is to collect links to criticism of the ideas in the Sequences. The purpose of doing this is to give readers the opportunity to hear both sides of the debate before making up their mind on controversial topics.
Talk:Perspectives on intelligence explosion
I nominate this page for deletion. Reasons: does not (even pretend to) follow the style of other articles, is not an LW-centric concept or one introduced in blog posts, has no articles linking to it and does not link to other articles (I say this knowing the risk that it might happen, which would be bad), bizarre inclusionism of the dumbest of critiques. Grognor 20:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Given that the page seems to have received some positive reception, I think it's worth improving the page instead of deleting it. I'm willing to give up inclusionism to a certain extent. I realize that some of the "critiques" may not deserve to be there at all, but I think it's worth linking to some critiques that are not quite up to the Less Wrong standard. I especially think we should link to the Charlie Stross and Ben Goertzel ones since they have been so widely read. I'm also open to renaming the page.
I'm not convinced of the advantages of limiting the scope of the wiki in general. For example, would it really do that much harm to have a wiki page linking to all of the advice threads for young people on what major to do and so on that of popped up over the years? I'd rather expand the scope of the wiki so that this sort of page is normal than delete this page so the scope stays constricted. Maybe we could engage the community at large with this issue?--John Maxwell IV 22:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Retracting deletion nomination. I'd prefer the page to be kept, but not linked to until/unless it is improved significantly. - Grognor 20:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)