So if we have a heresy, then exposing it as actually true would be good, because we want to know the truth—hang on.
Fronken
Karma: 131
… can’t we rewire brains right now? We just … don’t.
I think he meant “jesus myth” proponents, who IIRC are … dubious.
I asked about this a while ago, and apparently the software doesn’t support it :/
You’re supposed to roleplay a Gatekeeper. There is more than money on the line.
Signalling is useful.
Historical Flammel also has an official grave site in France (Paris, if I remember correctly); I want to think he lived to his eighties, but it’s been a few months since I last read about him.
I recall hearing that “grave” does not contain a body, although I’m not sure how the person who told me that knew. (They were suggesting using him in fiction, much as HPMOR did.)
Isn’t “Dark Side” approximately “effective, but dangerous”?
Well … isn’t it? What others are you thinking of? None spring to my mind.
He never said they were “rejected” or “ruled out”. Just weaker than the conversation—which I assume is because the average person is much worse than you, as cultured political disputant, experience.
Probably not true, still, unless you have the raw mind power to deduce all the flaws of the human mind from that mere conversation. And even then, only maybe.
Taking it as Bayesian evidence: arguably rational, although it’s so small your brain might round it up just to keep track of it, so it’s risky; and it may actually be negative (because psychopaths might be less likely to tell you something that might give them away.)
Worrying about said evidence: definitely irrational. Understandable, of course, with the low sanity waterline and all...
Upvoted for mention of “applause lights”.
Weirded out at the oversharing, obviously.
Assuming the context was one where sharing this somehow fit … somewhat squicked, but I would probably be squicked by some of their fantasies. That’s fantasies.
Oh, and some of the less rational ones might worry that this was an indicator that I was a dangerous psychopath. Probably the same ones who equate “pedophile” with “pedophile who fantasises about kidnap, rape, torture and murder” ,’:-. I dunno.
I think that “human pleasure” is such a complicated idea that trying to program it in formally is asking for disaster. That’s one of the things that you should definitely let the AI figure out for itself.
[...]
Eliezer is aware of this problem, but hopes to avoid disaster by being especially smart and careful. That approach has what I think is a bad expected value of outcome.
Huh I thought he wanted to use CEV?
Sorry I thought you were pointing out something Orphan had acknowledged already—that’s a different point. Retracted & upvoted.
2nd try replying to this, since people worried first was hard to parse:
I think that sexism is mostly folk psychology—false when tested, but not untestable given smart experimenters. Thus, feminism predicts that sexist hypotheses are not the way the world actually is, and that’s empirical.
But, there are a lot of people rallying under flags with “feminism” on them, and they vary widely. So many of them probably just assume the current facts as we know them (good) and so merely claim that under those facts certain things may be wrong, ethically. And you have others who actually believe sexist claims but still want to be called feminist. So maybe tabooing is needed.
Ah yeah successful should maybe have been accepted, or universal, or maybe claims should have been arguments. Thanks!
I’d also say: being downvoted by one person is not particularly strong evidence of anything; don’t get upset about it.
My first attempt to clarify was downvoted too :(
the obvious diagnosis is that you and Argency disagree about what “feminism” means
… oh. It is a very vague word … I figured they were just underestimating the coherence of opposing arguments, since it’s easy to when the position in question is quite discredited so you don’t encounter them… I’ll try asking them what they meant, good idea.
ಠ_ಠ
Each community could have its own standards and this wouldn’t pose too much of an issue, and this is more or less the way things worked.
The reply:
I think you are overestimating pre-internet uniformity here [...] Each group has different ideas of what would constitute provocative clothing.
That’s why only “in an ideal world”, methinks.
Wireheading. The term is not a metaphor, and it’s not a hypothetical. You can literally stick a wire into someone’s pleasure centers and activate them, using only non-groundbreaking neuroscience.
It’s been tested on humans, but AFAIK no-one has ever felt compelled to go any further.
(Yeah, seems like it might be evidence. But then, maybe akrasia...)