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

Comment author: username2 28 April 2016 09:58:42AM 1 point [-]

I don't like this idea, but people, please do not downvote Daniel just because you disagree. Downvote thumb is not for disagreements, it's for comments that don't add anything to the discussion.

Comment author: jsteinhardt 29 April 2016 06:26:53AM 1 point [-]

I assume at least some of the downvotes are from Eugene sockpuppets (he tends to downvote any suggestions that would make it harder to do his trolling).

Comment author: Vika 30 January 2016 04:59:54AM 8 points [-]

The above-mentioned researchers are skeptical in different ways. Andrew Ng thinks that human-level AI is ridiculously far away, and that trying to predict the future more than 5 years out is useless. Yann LeCun and Yoshua Bengio believe that advanced AI is far from imminent, but approve of people thinking about long-term AI safety.

Okay, but surely it’s still important to think now about the eventual consequences of AI. - Absolutely. We ought to be talking about these things.

Comment author: jsteinhardt 30 January 2016 08:01:43AM *  12 points [-]

+1 To go even further, I would add that it's unproductive to think of these researchers as being on anyone's "side". These are smart, nuanced people and rounding their comments down to a specific agenda is a recipe for misunderstanding.

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 25 December 2015 04:22:43PM *  5 points [-]

So what?

(EDIT: In case you don't know, username2 is an anonymous account that anyone can use, created after some jerk changed the password to the Username account formerly used for that purpose.)

Comment author: jsteinhardt 25 December 2015 10:11:05PM 3 points [-]

I'm well aware. It is therefore even more problematic if this account is abused --- note that there have been multiple confirmations that username2 has been used to downvote the same people that VoiceOfRa was downvoting before; in addition, VoiceOfRa has used the username2 account to start arguments with NancyLebovitz in a way that makes it look like a 3rd party is disagreeing with the decision, rather than VoiceOfRa himself. At the very least, it is better if everyone is aware of this situation, and ideally we would come up with a way to prevent such abuse.

Comment author: pianoforte611 24 December 2015 09:26:26PM 2 points [-]

The sudden very positive karma is extremely suspicious.

Comment author: jsteinhardt 24 December 2015 10:09:40PM 3 points [-]

I was 85% sure at the time that username2's comment was posted. I'm now 98% sure for a variety of reasons.

I'm only 75% sure that the upvotes on "username2"/VoiceOfRa's comments above are from sockpuppets.

In response to Voiceofra is banned
Comment author: LessWrong 24 December 2015 06:55:20AM -2 points [-]

I've gotten sufficient evidence from support that voiceofra has been doing retributive downvoting.

Requesting a transparency report.

Regarding (if $time-$postdate then karmadisabled), I can't see a reason as to why something like that shouldn't be implemented in less than a week. Any reason why it shouldn't? I never quite got the krama drama.

Comment author: jsteinhardt 24 December 2015 07:43:01AM 8 points [-]

Requesting a transparency report.

I think it's bad form to make costly (in terms of time) requests to moderators unless you're willing to be part of the solution. In this case, it would be good at minimum to outline exactly what you mean by a "transparency report" --- concretely, what sort of information would you like to see, and why would it be helpful? It would be even better if you were willing to volunteer to help in creating the report to the extent that the help can be utilized.

Comment author: username2 24 December 2015 06:18:53AM 7 points [-]

That wasn't the reason she gave for banning him.

Comment author: jsteinhardt 24 December 2015 06:20:20AM 6 points [-]

I'm 85% sure that you're VoiceOfRa.

Comment author: username2 24 December 2015 06:05:12AM *  12 points [-]

She's already abused her power at least once to ban someone for expressing opinions she doesn't like.

Comment author: jsteinhardt 24 December 2015 06:16:47AM 10 points [-]

I'm dubious that that constitutes abusing her power; AdvancedAtheist was highly and consistently downvoted for a long period of time before being banned.

Comment author: Lumifer 23 December 2015 09:18:09PM 12 points [-]

Just say you are a dictator and ban at a whim

There is a slight problem in that LW is not Nancy's personal blog to be shaped by her whims.

Comment author: jsteinhardt 24 December 2015 02:14:55AM 4 points [-]

As Romeo noted, Nancy was appointed roughly by popular acclaim (more like, a small number of highly dedicated and respected users appointing her, and no one objecting). I think it's reasonable in general to give mods a lot of discretionary power, and trust other veteran users to step in if things take a turn for the worse.

Comment author: jsteinhardt 20 November 2015 05:15:28PM 11 points [-]

My main update from this discussion has been a strong positive update about Gleb Tsipursky's character. I've been generally impressed by his ability to stay positive even in the face of criticism, and to continue seeking feedback for improving his approaches.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 16 November 2015 06:24:09PM 3 points [-]

You're creepy and artificial. Ella is creepy and artificial. This post is creepy and artificial. The About Us page of Intentional Insights is -very- creepy and artificial. And what makes this all bizarre is that the creepy and artificial is recursive - there's something creepy and artificial about the way you're creepy and artificial, in that it is so transparent and obvious that it cannot possibly be unintentionally transparent and obvious. The way you keep selling yourself, selling your company (which itself is selling you), selling merchandise selling your company selling yourself...

Well, knock it off. I don't know if you're a spider in a human suit, or a human in a spider-in-a-human-suit suit, or a spider in a human-in-a-spider-in-a-human-suit-suit suit, but at a certain level it stops mattering. If you're a naive innocent playing at Dark Arts, you're reading as a narcissistic con artist, and not even a terribly good one. If you're a sociopath playing as a naive innocent playing at Dark Arts in order to do something more elaborate that probably only vaguely involves Less Wrong, well, that's just ridiculous, so quit that. And if you're actually a con artist, you're terrible at whatever con you're trying to execute here and should go do something with social media, which actually looks like your skill set.

Comment author: jsteinhardt 17 November 2015 05:14:27PM *  8 points [-]

I can understand your dislike of Gleb's approach and even see many of your concerns as justified; do you really think your actions in this thread are helping you get what you want though? They certainly won't make Gleb himself listen to you, and they also don't make you sympathetic to onlookers. To the extent that you have issues with Gleb's actions, it seems like pointing them out in a non-abusive way for others to judge would be far more effective.

View more: Next