= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Why everybody believes that centaur wanted to kill Harry ? It rather seems like centaur was disarming him. And it is even possible, he was under imperius curse (from Quirrel) while disarming Harry. He seemed to be surprised about what he was doing (looked up with widened eyes) and he apologised. I believe Quirrel just wanted to interrupt the conversation between Harry and Centaur.
In response to
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 28, chapter 99-101
I don't think simple invitations are going to make much difference.
If some marginal group didn't drift here spontaneously because they're inherently interested in the community, then we must provide them other incentives. Unfortunately this might mean privileging them some way, which to be honest I usually find so unjust and contrary to truth seeking it pisses me off.
Perhaps there are benign forms of such privileging, but none are cognitively available to me at the moment.
What if they visit the website and feel hesitant, whether the atmosphere is welcoming enough for them, considering all the HBD staff ? I do not imply we should censor HBD away, I am interested in it too. If there is some thruth to it, we will have to face it sooner or later anyway, taking into account all the DNA sequencing projects etc. In the world outside, I got yelled at for my interest a couple time, it is my interest to have clear discussion here, so that I know, where things stand. But, anyway, regardless of nature or nurture, all the data agree, there is a significant portion of intelligent individuals in all marginalised groups, and LW would very much benefit from them. If I only could express something like that, and not sound creepy... Some analogy of this: http://lesswrong.com/lw/ap/of_gender_and_rationality/
although I doubt very much AI will be developed or that MIRI will ever really start coding it. Plus I do not want it to exist.
Could you elaborate on why you think that way? It's always interesting to hear why people think a strong AI or Friendly AI is not possible/probable, especially if they have good reasons to think that way.
I respond to your guestion for the fairness sake, but my reasons are not impressive.
- Most of it is probably a wishful thinking, driven by my desire not to have the powerful AI aronud. I am scared at the idea.
- The fact that people have felt AI is near for some time and we still do not have it.
- Maybe the things which are essential for learning are the same which make human intelligence limited. For instance forgetting things.
- Vague feeling, that biologically based inteligence is so complex, that computers are no match.
Prominent EA Julia Wise and her husband have decided to have kids. IMO, a good way to think about EA is that everyone makes their own trade-off between their own quality of life and the quality of life of others. You can also think of helping people in terms of scoring points.
Prominent EA Julia Wiseman and her husband have decided to have kids.
I am glad to hear it, because they were the most annoying example for me before. Good for her / them.
Maybe I am naive, but, how about explicitly stating, by some high status member, that we would be very happy if they contributed here ?
Eliezer wrote the same thing about women. http://lesswrong.com/lw/ap/of_gender_and_rationality/ It was not exactly "Women, come, please" but it was clear they would be welcome to participate. It might have helped. Or maybe the increased percentage in the census result was due to something else ? How would I know...
And note that Eliezer did not forbid pick-up art discussion and whatever You guys hold dear.
I could try and write a similar post as was that about women, but I am a small fish in this pond.
Would not it be nice to have such people interacting in LW conversations, instead of just linking to them ?
Yes. It would be nice. I am genuinely uncertain whether there's a good way to make LW appealing to people who currently dislike it, without alienating the existing contributors who do like it.
Maybe I am naive, but, how about explicitly stating, by some high status member, that we would be very happy if they contributed here ?
Eliezer wrote the same thing about women. http://lesswrong.com/lw/ap/of_gender_and_rationality/ It was not exactly "Women, come, please" but it was clear they would be welcome to participate. It might have helped. Or maybe the increased percentage in the census result was due to something else ? How would I know...
I'm thinking about the very low prior odds for them coming up anything unique.
In my experience, reading blogs from minority representants (sensible ones) introduces you to different thought patterns.
Not very specific, huh ?
Gypsies are the most focused on minority in my country. The gypsy blogger, who managed to leave her community, once described a story. Her mother visited her in her home, found frozen meat in her freezer, and started almonst crying: My daughter, how can you store meat at home, when people exist, who are hungry today ? (Gypsies are stereotypically bad at planning and managing their finances, to the point of selfdestruction. But before this blog, I did not understand, it makes them virtuous in their own eyes.)
This blog was also enlightening for me.
Would not it be nice to have such people interacting in LW conversations, instead of just linking to them ?
Especially for people intending to program friendly AI, who need to understand the needs of other people (although I doubt very much AI will be developed or that MIRI will ever really start coding it. Plus I do not want it to exist. But it is just me.)
The mainstream media seems less terrified of the idea of "designer babies", which is not specifically eugenics, but related enough that I wonder if Eugenics shouldn't quietly respawn in the Designer Babies category?
In response to
[LINK] Why I'm not on the Rationalist Masterlist
Most of the problems described in this post seem to be things that are not really practical to do anything about, but this caught my eye:
tl;dr: If you just typed in all honesty “I like eugenics”, even if I enjoy your posts about economics, congratulations, you freak me out and I really, really don’t know why I’m still reading your blog.
Really we need to stop using the word "eugenics." In the real world it really isn't smart to keep insisting on the "official" definition of a word decades after it acquired negative connotations for actually pretty good reasons.
What word would You suggest instead of eugenics ?
(Btw, I find it hilarious, having the discussion about inventing newspeak at LW, of all forums !)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I'm not saying she's doing it from a distance. If quirrel can get a troll into Hogwarts why not Bellatrix?
"If quirrel can get a troll into Hogwarts..."
It was not Quirrel, but Dumbledore, who got troll into Hogwards. In analogy to canon, Dumbledore brought a troll to Hogwards as a training device for Harry and Hermione, see the book HP and Philosophers stone. In canon the purpose was fulfilled, because the children had some sparring with troll and defeated him safely afterwards. In HPMOR, the plot is reversed, because neither Harry nor Hermione fall for this training trap. When told they should NOT go to Hogwards basement, because the troll is there, they are immune to the reversed psychology. Rather, they reasonably decide to obey and not to do the dangerous thing. They simply ignore the basement. Dumbledore makes another try later by telling Harry once more NOT to go to the basement and NOT to use the Alohomora spell to unlock the basement door. In vain again. So the troll stays in the basement for a long time, until Quirrel unleashes him, transforms him to be sunlight-immune and uses him as a weapon on Hermione.