They sit together in circle and think—okay, we lost a donor because of the name, let’s change the name, let’s come up with a good name. Never mind descriptiveness, never mind not trying to mislead, never mind that the cause of the loss was the name being descriptive. That’s called swindling people out of their money. Especially if you go ahead and try to interfere with how it is to be evaluated, to eliminate the possibility that ‘if researchers are cranks we won’t get money because researchers will demonstrate themselves to be cranks’. Anyone asks me if it’s worth donating there, I’ll tell, no, it’s just some bunch of sociopaths whom sat in circle and thought how to improve their appearance, but haven’t done anything technical that they could of failed at if they lacked technical ability, haven’t even sat and worked on something technical to improve appearance. I won’t even say ‘its probably cranks’. It’s beyond honest crankery now.
edit: or maybe it is actually a good thing. Call yourselves “Centre for AI safety”, then it is easily demonstrated you don’t work on self driving car safety or anything of this kind, ergo, a bunch of fraudsters.
I don’t care about opinion of a bunch that is here on LW. Also, that goal was within that particular thread. At the current point I am expressing my opinion on what I think about this whole anti-social activity of sitting, looking at how a string was processed, and making another string as to maximize donations (and the general enterprise of looking at “why people think we’re cranks” and changing just the appearance). Centre for AI safety, huh. No one ever done anything that doesn’t rely on extreme singularity scenario (FOOM), and it’s a centre for AI safety, something that from the name oughta work on safety of self driving cars. (you may not care about my opinion which is totally fine)
And do you think this “activity of sitting, looking at how a string was processed, and making another string as to maximize donations” works to increase donations?
I dunno if it works, it ought to work if you are rational, but can easily backfire in many ways. It is unfriendly to society at large in much same way how paperclip maximizer is unfriendly, sans the power.
They sit together in circle and think—okay, we lost a donor because of the name, let’s change the name, let’s come up with a good name. Never mind descriptiveness, never mind not trying to mislead, never mind that the cause of the loss was the name being descriptive. That’s called swindling people out of their money. Especially if you go ahead and try to interfere with how it is to be evaluated, to eliminate the possibility that ‘if researchers are cranks we won’t get money because researchers will demonstrate themselves to be cranks’. Anyone asks me if it’s worth donating there, I’ll tell, no, it’s just some bunch of sociopaths whom sat in circle and thought how to improve their appearance, but haven’t done anything technical that they could of failed at if they lacked technical ability, haven’t even sat and worked on something technical to improve appearance. I won’t even say ‘its probably cranks’. It’s beyond honest crankery now.
edit: or maybe it is actually a good thing. Call yourselves “Centre for AI safety”, then it is easily demonstrated you don’t work on self driving car safety or anything of this kind, ergo, a bunch of fraudsters.
You currently have 290 posts on LessWrong and Zero (0) total Karma.
This is a poor way to accomplish your goal.
Negative total karma scores are displayed as 0.
Yes, I know; he’s −51 for the last 30 days.
I don’t care about opinion of a bunch that is here on LW. Also, that goal was within that particular thread. At the current point I am expressing my opinion on what I think about this whole anti-social activity of sitting, looking at how a string was processed, and making another string as to maximize donations (and the general enterprise of looking at “why people think we’re cranks” and changing just the appearance). Centre for AI safety, huh. No one ever done anything that doesn’t rely on extreme singularity scenario (FOOM), and it’s a centre for AI safety, something that from the name oughta work on safety of self driving cars. (you may not care about my opinion which is totally fine)
I suppose it’s too much to ask that a moderator get involved with someone who is clearly here to vent rather than provide constructive criticism.
And do you think this “activity of sitting, looking at how a string was processed, and making another string as to maximize donations” works to increase donations?
I dunno if it works, it ought to work if you are rational, but can easily backfire in many ways. It is unfriendly to society at large in much same way how paperclip maximizer is unfriendly, sans the power.
Can a moderator please deal with private_messaging, who is clearly here to vent rather than provide constructive criticism?
Others: please do not feed the trolls.