Help: Which concepts are controversial on LW
I’m eager to improve the list References & Resources for LessWrong. I recently introduced a new label with the somewhat playful name Memetic Hazard. It is meant to mark resources that include ideas which might be controversial, bogus or which are works of fiction and therefore shouldn’t be taken at face value.
I should explain that the reason that some controversial concepts are listed in the first place is that I felt that I frequently encountered those concepts in some rather fanciful discussions and posts. Those posts and discussions attract attention as they are some of the more exciting and fictional content on LW. I had to look them up myself once and want to give new readers a companion guide to learn about the very concepts and their status within the community.
I might also turn the Key Concepts section into just Concepts with a Controversial subcategory.
The trigger for this discussion post was a recent comment by rwallace:
I thought quantum suicide is not controversial since MWI is obviously correct?
I agree MWI is solid, I’m not suggesting that be flagged. But it does not in any way imply quantum suicide; the latter is somewhere between fringe and crackpot, and a proven memetic hazard with at least one recorded death to its credit.
And the AI section? Well, the list is supposed to reflect the opinions hold in the LW community, especially by EY and the SIAI. I’m trying my best to do so and by that standard, how controversial is AI going FOOM etc.?
Well, AI go FOOM etc is again somewhere in the area between fringe and crackpot, as judged by people who actually know about the subject. If the list were specifically supposed to represent the opinions of the SIAI, then it would belong on the SIAI website, not on LW.
So my question, are AI going FOOM and Quantum suicide considered controversial concepts in this community? And should any other content on the list potentially be marked controversial?
Thank you!
Memetic hazard isn’t just about controversy, it’s about possible adverse effects from exposure. For example, TVTropes is a memetic hazard because starting to read it tends to lead to wasting lots of time.
To avoid appeal to curiosity-stopping social pressure or authority establishing answers but not understanding of the reasons behind them, the question should be, what are the generally accepted references on these topics, if any (whatever the resulting position)?
Generally accepted references in the LW community are as good as answering what is controversial? In both cases the authority will be the majority or a number of trusted individuals in this community. The differences will be that not only the topic is marked controversial based on the opinions of one community but the reference will be given by the same as well.
I’m pretty much an outsider with almost no mental baggage as I’m oblivious of most of the material in question. The references and resources I linked to in the list are all the result of direct answers to questions posed by me.
I believe that whoever is interested in this community should be given answers to what this community believes. Surely that is authority establishing, it is supposed to be. Someone who has his own answers will either not join in the first place or challenge the currently established answers. And curiosity-stopping social pressure, does that even work? Usually forbidden knowledge will have the opposite effect.
That is, you tell people the truth that you think they should be careful, you leave them clueless or simply provide them with unfiltered information. I think since this is a community devoted to refining rationality it shouldn’t leave people clueless about what it believes might be bogus and it shouldn’t just let them decide on their own as that would undermine the very nature of a community.
If a topic is declared non-controversial, it’s much better to substantiate with a reference that is supposed to convince of the conclusion than to just state the conclusion itself. The latter is more likely to encourage information cascades.
(I commented on your phrasing of the question, in its capacity to frame the expected discussion, not requested references from you; I failed to parse the last two paragraphs of your comment.)
This survey is the first place I’d look. On average Less Wrongers only gave a 56% probability of Many Worlds being basically correct, so I wouldn’t even count MWI as uncontroversial.
While we’re at it, where did the term/acronym/onomatopoeia FOOM even come from? I didn’t find that in the AI-FOOM debate, and the most immediate suggestions by the Internet don’t seem to fit.
I’m pretty sure it’s an onomatopoeia (of, e.g., something bursting into flames or exploding).