Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

[Link] Don't Shoot the Messenger

8 Vaniver 19 April 2017 10:14PM
Comment author: Vaniver 17 April 2017 07:07:35PM 13 points [-]

In general, building infrastructure for the rationalist community to interact is cool and I approve of it; for this particular one, there are questions about using lesswrong as a brand name if it's not affiliated with LW itself. (For example, the Facebook group that used to be called "LessWrong" eventually got renamed to Brain Debugging Discussion at Eliezer's request.)

Comment author: g_pepper 17 April 2017 04:36:35PM *  1 point [-]

The description on the landing page of lesswrong.io is:

This is a community for people who are interested in Rationality, Cognitive Science, Technology, Philosophy, and related subjects. Our goal is to share and discuss insightful ideas that help us to improve our reasoning and decision-making skills.

But that sounds like it could be a description of lesswrong.com. Is lesswrong.io intended to be a replacement for lesswrong.com? If so, is there a plan for deprecating lesswrong.com and migrating the user base over to lesswrong.io? If not, is seems to me that having two different forums with the same purpose could actually splinter rather than revitalize the community.

Are there any suggestions for what sorts of discussions the io site is for vs what sorts of discussions the .com site is for?

Comment author: Vaniver 17 April 2017 07:01:03PM 3 points [-]

If so, is there a plan for deprecating lesswrong.com and migrating the user base over to lesswrong.io?

Nope. There is a plan underway to migrate lesswrong.com to a new codebase, but it'll be similar to Reddit / Hacker News (i.e. much the same) instead of Twitter / Mastodon.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 31 May 2015 09:39:38PM *  1 point [-]

This seems like just a mistake: The current LW terms of service (posted on April 23) forbid the use of automated scripts to export your posts or comments from the site.

You are explicitly prohibited from:
[...]
5. Using a spider, scraper, or other automated technology to access the Website;

This would include some of the tools listed on the site FAQ.

Comment author: Vaniver 17 April 2017 05:37:58PM 0 points [-]

My understanding is that restrictions like this exist so that all scrapers / spiders / etc. can be banned or blocked at will if they become bothersome. If you put a restriction like "Don't use a spider, scraper, or other automated technology that interferes with the operation of the website" now you might have a fight on your hands over whether or not something actually "interfered" with the website.

Comment author: username2 04 April 2017 07:32:21PM 0 points [-]

I tend to think you're right, but how is OP not doing the same thing when it comes to AI ?

Comment author: Vaniver 04 April 2017 07:38:38PM 1 point [-]

It's been a long time since PS2s were export limited because the chips were potentially useful for making cruise missiles. Getting access to compute is cheap and unadversarial in a way that getting access to fissile material is not.

Comment author: whpearson 04 April 2017 02:10:54PM 4 points [-]

Arguments for openness:

  • Everyone can see the bugs/ logical problems with your design.
  • Decreases the chance of arms race, depending upon psychology of the participants. And also black ops to your team. If I think people are secretly developing an intelligence breakthrough I wouldn't trust them and would develop my own in secret. And/or attempt to sabotage their efforts and steal their technology (and win). If it is out there, there is little benefit to neutralizing your team of safety researchers.
  • If something is open you are more likely to end up in a multi-polar world. And if the intelligence that occurs only has a chance of being human aligned you may want to reduce variance by increasing the number of poles.
  • If an arms race is likely despite your best efforts it is better that all the competitors have any of your control technology, this might require them to have your tech stack.

If someone is developing in the open, it is good proof that they are not unilaterally trying to impose their values on the future.

The future is hard, I'm torn on the question of openness.

Comment author: Vaniver 04 April 2017 07:36:18PM 1 point [-]

Decreases the chance of arms race, depending upon psychology of the participants.

This may be a good argument in general, but given the actual facts on the ground when OpenAI was created, the reverse seems to have occurred.

Comment author: DustinWehr 03 April 2017 10:06:59PM *  13 points [-]

A guy I know, who works in one of the top ML groups, is literally less worried about superintelligence than he is about getting murdered by rationalists. That's an extreme POV. Most researchers in ML simply think that people who worry about superintelligence are uneducated cranks addled by sci fi.

I hope everyone is aware of that perception problem.

Comment author: Vaniver 04 April 2017 01:19:04AM 8 points [-]

This seems like a good place to point out the unilaterialist's curse. If you're thinking about taking an action that burns a commons and notice that no one else has done it yet, that's pretty good evidence that you're overestimating the benefits or underestimating the costs.

Comment author: katydee 24 March 2017 01:31:27AM 1 point [-]

Something like this also happened with Event Horizon, though the metamorphosis is not yet complete...

Comment author: Vaniver 26 March 2017 06:04:19PM 1 point [-]

It looks like it's finishing soon, though.

Comment author: Vaniver 23 March 2017 08:04:05AM 2 points [-]

Front page being reconfigured. For the moment, you can get to a page with the sidebar by going through the "read the sequences" link (not great, and if you can read this, you probably didn't need this message).

Comment author: Alicorn 19 March 2017 06:44:43AM 3 points [-]

I think this was helped along substantially by personal acquaintance with and HPMOR fandom of the landlord, which seems hard to replicate on purpose.

Comment author: Vaniver 21 March 2017 07:18:36PM 2 points [-]

My understanding is that most landlords want the friends of their good tenants to move in, because they'll likely be equally good and also living near friends will make people less likely to move out.

View more: Next