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

Comment author: [deleted] 22 November 2014 10:18:40PM -2 points [-]

Am I the only one to whom ‘what's wrong with raping someone if they don't get injured, traumatized, pregnant, nor get STDs’ sounds a lot like ‘what's wrong with driving at 100 km/h while drunk, sleep-deprived and talking on the phone if you don't have any accidents’?

In response to comment by [deleted] on Open thread, Nov. 17 - Nov. 23, 2014
Comment author: knb 23 November 2014 02:42:29AM *  5 points [-]

You obviously missed the point completely. Hanson's thought experiment wasn't claiming there would be nothing wrong with committing that type of rape, his point was that it would be traumatic in the same way being cuckolded is traumatic. And yet committing that type of rape is illegal, while cuckolding is not even a misdemeanor. His point wasn't to denigrate the psychological harm of rape, it was to investigate the roots of the difference in the way these harms are treated.

Comment author: Capla 17 November 2014 11:54:36PM 7 points [-]

What are the downvotes for? If I don't have great understanding, should I say nothing?

[Not a rhetorical question.]

Comment author: knb 18 November 2014 12:17:59AM 15 points [-]

I didn't downvote, but linking to a rationalwiki attack post about neoreactionaries isn't a good way to inform people.

Comment author: Capla 12 November 2014 06:17:19PM 0 points [-]

Is that on overcoming bias?

Comment author: knb 12 November 2014 08:58:38PM 0 points [-]

Yes.

Comment author: Capla 10 November 2014 11:27:36PM 13 points [-]

Does anyone know how Eliezer first met Robin? How did the first end up as a co-editor of the latter's blog?

Comment author: knb 12 November 2014 08:36:24AM 0 points [-]

OB was sponsored by the Future of Humanity Institute, (IIRC) so perhaps they encouraged RH and EY to post there? You could always ask at Robin Hanson's monthly open thread.

Comment author: CellBioGuy 28 October 2014 11:21:19PM *  -1 points [-]

I, for one, love that guy's blog.

Comment author: knb 29 October 2014 12:53:59AM 0 points [-]

Because you're a connoisseur of insipid name-calling and delirious political grandstanding on non-political issues?

Comment author: advancedatheist 28 October 2014 05:27:13AM *  4 points [-]

Dale Carrico mocks Musk:

http://amormundi.blogspot.com/2014/10/summoning-demon-robot-cultist-elon-musk.html

Of course, Elon Musk has built real companies which make real stuff. Even The Atlantic magazine admits that:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/10/what-it-took-for-spacex-to-become-a-serious-space-company/381724/?single_page=true

Musk's accomplishments don't necessarily make him an expert on the demonology of AI's. But his track record suggests that he has a better informed and organized way of thinking about the potentials of technology than Carrico's.

Comment author: knb 28 October 2014 05:44:23AM *  6 points [-]

Why even link to such a stupid and insubstantial article? (I'm referring to the first one of course).

In response to comment by knb on Non-standard politics
Comment author: ChristianKl 26 October 2014 06:18:04PM 0 points [-]

I think you underrate the complexity of carbon taxes. Measuring emissions isn't trivial. Various offsetting schemes can also get complex.

Comment author: knb 26 October 2014 08:26:44PM *  1 point [-]

The complexity of emissions taxes is orders of magnitude lower compared to current US legislation.

Comment author: knb 26 October 2014 09:41:01AM 44 points [-]

We did it. Mission accomplished.

In response to comment by knb on Non-standard politics
Comment author: ChristianKl 25 October 2014 02:48:24PM 1 point [-]

I'm not against "big government" as long as it isn't wasteful or overly complex.

Does that basically mean Singapore is okay, but the US isn't? Otherwise what's your idea of not overly complex big government?

Comment author: knb 26 October 2014 05:02:09AM *  2 points [-]

For example, with regard to energy policy, I wouldn't be opposed to the government establishing a large carbon tax. A large carbon tax would be "big government" in the sense that it would have a large economic effect relative to laissez-faire. But it would be simple and therefore would have little overhead. It would be easy for voters to understand, easy for economists to evaluate, and easy for companies to make decisions about without having to hire extra bureaucrats and lawyers to ensure compliance. Ensuring compliance with complex regulations is a deadweight loss.

Comment author: ChristianKl 25 October 2014 01:51:11PM -3 points [-]

I find it historically exceptional that the United States doesn't use its military dominance to rule or extract tribute from rich but relatively weak nations such as Canada, Japan, and much of Western Europe.

The US runs a very big trading surplus. It gets vastly more goods from other countries than it ships to other countries. Of course that technically isn't called "tribute" but it comes down to the same thing. More goods for US citizens.

Comment author: knb 26 October 2014 04:39:53AM 1 point [-]

The US trade deficit is not "tribute," the idea is absurd. The trade deficit is not "you give us goods, we give you nothing," it is financed by a combination of sales of US based capital to foreigners (American real estate is especially popular) and Americans going into debt with foreigners. (As Edward Conard pointed out, the two amount to the same thing.) Since these debts are paid back, with interest there is no way it could be interpreted as tribute.

View more: Next