The Spanish flu of 1918 killed 25-50 million people. World War II killed 60 million people; 107 is the order of the largest catastrophes in humanity’s written history. Substantially larger numbers, such as 500 million deaths, and especially qualitatively different scenarios such as the extinction of the entire human species, seem to trigger a different mode of thinking—enter into a ‘separate magisterium’. People who would never dream of hurting a child hear of an existential risk, and say, ‘Well, maybe the human species doesn’t really deserve to survive.’
Eliezer Yudkowsky, ‘Cognitive Biases Potentially Affecting Judgement of Global Risks’, in Nick Bostrom and Milan M. Ćirković (eds.), Global Catastrophic Risks, Oxford, 2008, p. 114
Retracted because it violates the spirit of one of the section rules.
Can someone explain to me what is going on here? The comment is getting downvoted and Eliezer himself is telling me not to quote him (or so it appears—it’s not clear whether he is being serious or not). Before deciding to post the comment, I read the instructions closely and it seemed clear that the quote—which comes from a published book, not from LW, OB, or HPMoR—didn’t violate any of the rules. Maybe this is all obvious to those who post regularly on this section, but I am myself rather puzzled by the whole thing.
You have the honour to have provoked the introduction of a new guideline (or a more explicit and precise modified version of an existing one). The norms shall henceforth be clearer to everyone. Bravo!
The spirit of the no-LW, OB, HPMoR rule is that the community shouldn’t be quoting itself in quotes threads. That has a dangerous echo chamber-y feel to it.
Thanks. I didn’t perceive that this was the spirit of the rule precisely because it was explicitly restricted to apply to writings from certain websites and ebooks. If the purpose is to ban quotes by (past and present) members of LessWrong, why not simply write, “No quotes by past or present members of LessWrong”?
Just don’t quote Eliezer and you should be safe. Better yet, don’t quote any of the LW regulars, regardless of where you found the quote. If you want to share something they posted elsewhere, use the Open thread or create a Discussion post, if it’s interesting enough and you have something to add to the quote.
...how are we supposed to tell people about this rule?
“We don’t put quotes from Eliezer in the Rationality Quotes thread” seems to work. Quoting the expression of an authority is a way to lend persuasiveness to your rule assertion but it is not intrinsic to the process of rule explaining.
I can tell people “Don’t drive through intersections when the lights are red” and I’m telling someone about the rule without quoting anything.
I think that the purpose of the current instruction is to refrain from quoting ourselves and each other. So I’d see it as a trivial extension to understand that Eliezer and other well-known members of the community should not be used for a source for quotes.
Bzzt! You have officially failed at understanding Pascal’s mugging. Final sentence of the quote:
People who would never dream of hurting a child hear of an existential risk, and say, ‘Well, maybe the human species doesn’t really deserve to survive.’
No mentions of probability.
But thanks for playing and contributing to the ever increasing bastardization and meaninglessness of the term “Pascal’s Mugging”!
Probably. But the invocations of Pascal’s Mugging really annoy me. It was one thing when people like XiXi simply dropped the entire algorithmic probability or post-estimate setting of utility which defined Pascal’s Mugging as Yudkowsky and Bostrom invented it, and bastardized it into some sort of fully general counterargument against any probability they dislike and choose to define as ‘small’. Because there is some sort of minor legitimate point there even though they aren’t engaging in the actual discussion about uncertainties like Holden was.
But to bastardize it a second time to apply to any discussion of existential risk whatsoever, for no reason other than as rhetoric? That really burns my eggs. Pascal’s Mugging didn’t deserve what people have done to it.
The description above doesn’t mention probability, but the real-world situations where this turns up tend to involve situations where either the event is of low probability, or where one side claims that the consequences of the event are so severe that the other side shouldn’t bother arguing that the event is of low probability. As a practical matter, saying “we must do X or the human species doesn’t survive” usually amounts to Pascal’s Mugging.
Eliezer Yudkowsky, ‘Cognitive Biases Potentially Affecting Judgement of Global Risks’, in Nick Bostrom and Milan M. Ćirković (eds.), Global Catastrophic Risks, Oxford, 2008, p. 114
Retracted because it violates the spirit of one of the section rules.
Can someone explain to me what is going on here? The comment is getting downvoted and Eliezer himself is telling me not to quote him (or so it appears—it’s not clear whether he is being serious or not). Before deciding to post the comment, I read the instructions closely and it seemed clear that the quote—which comes from a published book, not from LW, OB, or HPMoR—didn’t violate any of the rules. Maybe this is all obvious to those who post regularly on this section, but I am myself rather puzzled by the whole thing.
You have the honour to have provoked the introduction of a new guideline (or a more explicit and precise modified version of an existing one). The norms shall henceforth be clearer to everyone. Bravo!
The spirit of the no-LW, OB, HPMoR rule is that the community shouldn’t be quoting itself in quotes threads. That has a dangerous echo chamber-y feel to it.
Thanks. I didn’t perceive that this was the spirit of the rule precisely because it was explicitly restricted to apply to writings from certain websites and ebooks. If the purpose is to ban quotes by (past and present) members of LessWrong, why not simply write, “No quotes by past or present members of LessWrong”?
There’s a family resemblance effect going on here. Since Eliezer is the founder of the site, quoting him violates the spirit of the rule more strongly than quoting off-site writings of other Less Wrongers.
Dunno. Maybe that’s what it should be.
Just don’t quote Eliezer and you should be safe. Better yet, don’t quote any of the LW regulars, regardless of where you found the quote. If you want to share something they posted elsewhere, use the Open thread or create a Discussion post, if it’s interesting enough and you have something to add to the quote.
Thou shalt not quote Yudkowsky.
...how are we supposed to tell people about this rule?
Edit: Aw, I thought it was funny.
Ever played Mao)?
Saying the name of the game ::gives card::
One of my fondest childhood memories.
“We don’t put quotes from Eliezer in the Rationality Quotes thread” seems to work. Quoting the expression of an authority is a way to lend persuasiveness to your rule assertion but it is not intrinsic to the process of rule explaining.
I can tell people “Don’t drive through intersections when the lights are red” and I’m telling someone about the rule without quoting anything.
Understood.
Is this a trivial extension of
to include SI/MIRI stuff or a new commandment?
I think that the purpose of the current instruction is to refrain from quoting ourselves and each other. So I’d see it as a trivial extension to understand that Eliezer and other well-known members of the community should not be used for a source for quotes.
Yep, that trivial extension one.
That quote sounds to me like “I really wish people would fall for Pascal’s Mugging”.
Bzzt! You have officially failed at understanding Pascal’s mugging. Final sentence of the quote:
No mentions of probability.
But thanks for playing and contributing to the ever increasing bastardization and meaninglessness of the term “Pascal’s Mugging”!
Is it just me, or did your comments become much more acerbic and sarcastic in the past few months?
Probably. But the invocations of Pascal’s Mugging really annoy me. It was one thing when people like XiXi simply dropped the entire algorithmic probability or post-estimate setting of utility which defined Pascal’s Mugging as Yudkowsky and Bostrom invented it, and bastardized it into some sort of fully general counterargument against any probability they dislike and choose to define as ‘small’. Because there is some sort of minor legitimate point there even though they aren’t engaging in the actual discussion about uncertainties like Holden was.
But to bastardize it a second time to apply to any discussion of existential risk whatsoever, for no reason other than as rhetoric? That really burns my eggs. Pascal’s Mugging didn’t deserve what people have done to it.
The description above doesn’t mention probability, but the real-world situations where this turns up tend to involve situations where either the event is of low probability, or where one side claims that the consequences of the event are so severe that the other side shouldn’t bother arguing that the event is of low probability. As a practical matter, saying “we must do X or the human species doesn’t survive” usually amounts to Pascal’s Mugging.
So you know you were wrong, you admit you were wrong, ‘but’ you’re going to continue going on about how really you’re right. Yeah, no thanks.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/z0/the_pascals_wager_fallacy_fallacy/