I hope the downvotes of the parent are for taboo violation and not for content. When it comes to Roko’s Basilisk specifically (considering potential spooky acausal variants separately) Army’s solution is correct. With the caveat firmly in place I don’t believe even Eliezer would disagree with that. If he did then I would have to seriously reconsider my support for SIAI—it would indicate that he is someone who is likely to actually implement (or support the implementation of) the Basilisk’s glare.
I indeed suspect that someone is just downvoting all posts mentioning the basilisk regardless of content. (As for “[T]hat doesn’t sound plausible to me”, this is slightly less true now than when I wrote that post—see http://lesswrong.com/lw/2ft/open_thread_july_2010_part_2/64f2.)
I hope the downvotes of the parent are for taboo violation and not for content. When it comes to Roko’s Basilisk specifically (considering potential spooky acausal variants separately) Army’s solution is correct. With the caveat firmly in place I don’t believe even Eliezer would disagree with that. If he did then I would have to seriously reconsider my support for SIAI—it would indicate that he is someone who is likely to actually implement (or support the implementation of) the Basilisk’s glare.
I indeed suspect that someone is just downvoting all posts mentioning the basilisk regardless of content. (As for “[T]hat doesn’t sound plausible to me”, this is slightly less true now than when I wrote that post—see http://lesswrong.com/lw/2ft/open_thread_july_2010_part_2/64f2.)
That is certainly not consistent with his behavior.