I was already downvoted 6 before whining about my own fault. If Omega need not be infallible than it is certainly gratuitously confusing to me to put such an omega in the argument. I am a very smart potential fellow traveler here, it would seem a defect of the site that its collective behavior is to judge queries such as mine unreasonable and undesirable to be seen.
If omega has previously been cited to be quite fallible and still have a newcomb’s problem, I have not noticed it and I would love to see a link. Meanwhile, I’d still like to know how a newcomb’s problem stated with a garden-variety human conman making the prediction is inferior to one which gratuitously calls upon a being with special powers unknown in the universe. Why attribute to Omega that which can be adequately explained by Penn and Teller?
I was already downvoted 6 before whining about my own fault.
So?
If Omega need not be infallible than it is certainly gratuitously confusing to me to put such an omega in the argument.
No, it’s necessary to prevent other people from ignoring the hypothetical and going ‘I trick Omega! ha ha ha I are so clever!’ This is as about as interesting as saying, in response to the trolley dilemma, ‘I always carry a grenade with me, so instead of choosing between the 5 people and the fat man, I just toss the grenade down and destroy the track! ha ha ha I are so clever!’
I am a very smart potential fellow traveler here, it would seem a defect of the site that its collective behavior is to judge queries such as mine unreasonable and undesirable to be seen.
‘I am important! You should treat me nicer!’
If omega has previously been cited to be quite fallible and still have a newcomb’s problem, I have not noticed it and I would love to see a link.
Multiple people have already pointed it out here, which should tell you something about how widespread that simple observation is—why on earth do you need a link? (Also, if you are “very smart”, it should have been easy to construct the obvious Google query.)
No, it’s necessary to prevent other people from ignoring the hypothetical and going ‘I trick Omega! ha ha ha I are so clever!’ This is as about as interesting as saying, in response to the trolley dilemma, ‘I always carry a grenade with me, so instead of choosing between the 5 people and the fat man, I just toss the grenade down and destroy the track! ha ha ha I are so clever!’
There have been numerous threads about what can lesswrong/SIAI do to attract more interest and support. This argues towards a certain recapitulation of ground already covered. When I tell you things like i have been reading this site and overcomingbias for years, that I am neither particularly ignorant, particularly doctrinaire, nor particularly thick, it may well be that I would like better treatment. But it is also information about the emergent behavior of this community towards those who are probably its “hot market.”
If you look through the comments below, I don’t think you can miss that there are many commenting to whom the non-requirement of near-magical powers in Omega is news to them as well. Is site-emergent behavior of “We don’t want to see posts like this” really desirable on posts that bring this out?
I recognize there is a line somewhere beyond which you don’t dilute the site message to pick up an increasingly small number of people. Especially if your model of these people on the margins is as crackpots who are unlikely to be fixed. My opinion and suggestion is that this site in an emergent fashion (I don’t think it is the plan) draws that line too close to the orthodoxy.
When I tell you things like i have been reading this site and overcomingbias for years, that I am neither particularly ignorant, particularly doctrinaire, nor particularly thick, it may well be that I would like better treatment.
You may be none of those things but this post received the appropriate treatment (albeit with more resulting commentary that is desirable).
But it is also information about the emergent behavior of this community towards those who are probably its “hot market.”
The people who are the ‘hot market’ would be turned off by site if it contained many posts like this. Partly because of the low standard of reasoning but mostly because of the petulant whining. We don’t want that. We downvote.
I was already downvoted 6 before whining about my own fault. If Omega need not be infallible than it is certainly gratuitously confusing to me to put such an omega in the argument. I am a very smart potential fellow traveler here, it would seem a defect of the site that its collective behavior is to judge queries such as mine unreasonable and undesirable to be seen.
If omega has previously been cited to be quite fallible and still have a newcomb’s problem, I have not noticed it and I would love to see a link. Meanwhile, I’d still like to know how a newcomb’s problem stated with a garden-variety human conman making the prediction is inferior to one which gratuitously calls upon a being with special powers unknown in the universe. Why attribute to Omega that which can be adequately explained by Penn and Teller?
So?
No, it’s necessary to prevent other people from ignoring the hypothetical and going ‘I trick Omega! ha ha ha I are so clever!’ This is as about as interesting as saying, in response to the trolley dilemma, ‘I always carry a grenade with me, so instead of choosing between the 5 people and the fat man, I just toss the grenade down and destroy the track! ha ha ha I are so clever!’
‘I am important! You should treat me nicer!’
Multiple people have already pointed it out here, which should tell you something about how widespread that simple observation is—why on earth do you need a link? (Also, if you are “very smart”, it should have been easy to construct the obvious Google query.)
There have been numerous threads about what can lesswrong/SIAI do to attract more interest and support. This argues towards a certain recapitulation of ground already covered. When I tell you things like i have been reading this site and overcomingbias for years, that I am neither particularly ignorant, particularly doctrinaire, nor particularly thick, it may well be that I would like better treatment. But it is also information about the emergent behavior of this community towards those who are probably its “hot market.”
If you look through the comments below, I don’t think you can miss that there are many commenting to whom the non-requirement of near-magical powers in Omega is news to them as well. Is site-emergent behavior of “We don’t want to see posts like this” really desirable on posts that bring this out?
I recognize there is a line somewhere beyond which you don’t dilute the site message to pick up an increasingly small number of people. Especially if your model of these people on the margins is as crackpots who are unlikely to be fixed. My opinion and suggestion is that this site in an emergent fashion (I don’t think it is the plan) draws that line too close to the orthodoxy.
Apparently I really need to write the companion piece to Please Don’t Fight the Hypothetical titled When and How to Fight the Hypothetical.
You may be none of those things but this post received the appropriate treatment (albeit with more resulting commentary that is desirable).
The people who are the ‘hot market’ would be turned off by site if it contained many posts like this. Partly because of the low standard of reasoning but mostly because of the petulant whining. We don’t want that. We downvote.