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

Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on Open thread, February 15-28, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: David_Gerard 15 February 2013 11:17PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (345)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 26 February 2013 05:39:31AM 0 points [-]

Deleted. Don't link to possible information hazards on Less Wrong without clear warning signs.

E.g. this comment for a justified user complaint. I don't care if you hold us all in contempt, please don't link to what some people think is a possible info hazard without clear warning signs that will be seen before the link is clicked. Treat it the same way you would goatse (warning: googling that will lead to an exceptionally disgusting image).

Comment author: [deleted] 26 February 2013 05:31:36PM 3 points [-]


Why delete such comments altogether, rather than edit them to rot-13 them and add a warning in the front?

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 27 February 2013 12:16:37AM 3 points [-]

I can't edit comments.

Comment author: [deleted] 27 February 2013 11:10:35AM 0 points [-]


Comment author: pedanterrific 27 February 2013 04:07:45PM *  3 points [-]

He can edit his own without leaving an * , for the record.

Comment author: shminux 26 February 2013 05:46:22AM 3 points [-]

Ok, thanks for this mental image of a goatselisk, man!

Comment author: wedrifid 26 February 2013 06:31:15PM *  5 points [-]

Deleted. Don't link to possible information hazards on Less Wrong without clear warning signs.

For example this is the link that was in the now deleted. I repeat it with the clear warning signs and observe that Charlie Stross (the linked to author) has updated his post so that it actually gives his analysis of the forbidden topic in question.

Warning: This link contains something defined as an Information Hazard by the lesswrong administrator. Do not follow it if this concerns you: Charlie Stross discusses Roko's Basilisk. On a similar note: You just lost the game.

I wanted the link to be available if necessary just so that it makes sense to people when I say that Charlie Stross doesn't know how decision theory works and his analysis is rubbish. Don't even bother unless you are interested in categorizing various kinds of ignorant comments on the internet.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 27 February 2013 12:18:15AM 0 points [-]

It'll do until we have a better standard warning.

Comment author: wedrifid 27 February 2013 04:52:03AM 2 points [-]

It'll do until we have a better standard warning.

A standard warning would be good to have. It feels awkward trying to come up with a warning without knowing precisely what is to be warned about. In particular it isn't clear whether you would have a strong preference (ie. outright insistence) that the warning doesn't include specific detail that Roko's Basilisk is involved. After all, some would reason that just mentioning the concept brings it to mind and itself causes potential harm (ie. You've already made them lose the game).

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) all such "Information Hazard" warnings are not going to be particularly ambiguous because there just aren't enough other things that are given that label.