He says that natural events are included in the category of journalism that's not about exposing other peoples secrets....
LOL, how did I miss this:
1) There is quite a bit of journalism that has nothing to do with exposing other peoples secrets. This would include reporting on natural events (storms, snow, earthquakes, politicians lying or accepting bribes).
Are you under the impression that a politician wouldn't consider his accepting bribes to be a secret?
Wikileaks has published less than 1% of the diplomatic cables[1]. It goes thorough and removes sensitive and personal information before posting them online[2]. Except for a handful of exceptions, they only publish information that one of their newspaper partners has already published[2].
In the US we don't say people are guilty until proven so -- Manning has made no public confession, and has not been tried. He's being held solely as the result of one man's (Adrian Lamo's) testimony, to the best of our knowledge[3]. That man was forcibly checked into a mental institution 3 weeks before said informing, and has made several inconsistent statements about his relationship with Manning, and what Manning told him to the press[4].
What do you suppose Einstein would say about doing different things over and over and expecting the same result? :p
Never trust anyone unless you're talking in person? :p
Yes. If I didn't none of this would make any sense...
It's interesting, but I don't see any similarly high-effectiveness ways to influence Peter Thiel... Republicans already want to do high x-risk things, Thiel doesn't already want to decrease funding.
After reviewing my copies of the deleted post, I can say that he doesn't say this explicitly. I was remembering another commenter who was trying to work out the implications on x-risk of having viewed the basilisk.
EY does say things that directly imply he thinks the post is a basilisk because of an x-risk increase, but he does not say what he thinks that increase is.
Edit: can't reply, no karma. It means I don't know if it's proportional.
At karma 0 I can't reply to each of you one at a time (rate limited - 10 min per post), so here are my replies in a single large comment:
I would feel differently about nuke designs. As I said in the "why" links, I believe that EY has a bug when it comes to tail risks. This is an attempt to fix that bug.
Basically non-nuke censorship isn't necessary when you use a reddit engine... and Roko's post isn't a nuke.
Yes, though you'd have to say more.
Incredible, thanks for the link
Incredible. Where were you two days ago!
After Roko's post on the question of enduring torture to reduce existential risks, I was sure they're must be a SIAI/LWer who was willing to kill for the cause, but no one spoke up. Thanks :p
In this case my estimate is a 5% chance that EY wants to spread the censored material, and used censoring for publicity. Therefore spreading the censored material is questionable as a tactic.
Great! Get EY to rot13 posts instead of censoring them.
You can't just pretend that the threat is trivial when it's not.
Fair enough. But you can't pretend that it's illegal when it's not (ie. the torture/murder example you gave).
Actually, I just sent an email. Christians/Republicans are killing ??? people for the same reason they blocked stem cell research: stupidity. Also, why you're not including EY in that causal chain is beyond me.
I think his blackmail declarations either don't cover my precommitment, or they also require him to not obey US laws (which are also threats).
Sorry to see this so heavily downvoted. Thanks -- this made for interesting reading and watching.
If you haven't checked out the archive of iq.org it's also a rather interesting blog :)
re: formatting... you don't happen to use Ubuntu/Chrome, do you?