He says that natural events are included in the category of journalism that’s not about exposing other peoples secrets....
waitingforgodel
Karma: −101
LOL, how did I miss this:
1) There is quite a bit of journalism that has nothing to do with exposing other peoples secrets. This would include reporting on natural events (storms, snow, earthquakes, politicians lying or accepting bribes).
Are you under the impression that a politician wouldn’t consider his accepting bribes to be a secret?
Wikileaks has published less than 1% of the diplomatic cables[1]. It goes thorough and removes sensitive and personal information before posting them online[2]. Except for a handful of exceptions, they only publish information that one of their newspaper partners has already published[2].
In the US we don’t say people are guilty until proven so—Manning has made no public confession, and has not been tried. He’s being held solely as the result of one man’s (Adrian Lamo’s) testimony, to the best of our knowledge[3]. That man was forcibly checked into a mental institution 3 weeks before said informing, and has made several inconsistent statements about his relationship with Manning, and what Manning told him to the press[4].
What do you suppose Einstein would say about doing different things over and over and expecting the same result? :p
Never trust anyone unless you’re talking in person? :p
Yes. If I didn’t none of this would make any sense...
It’s interesting, but I don’t see any similarly high-effectiveness ways to influence Peter Thiel… Republicans already want to do high x-risk things, Thiel doesn’t already want to decrease funding.
After reviewing my copies of the deleted post, I can say that he doesn’t say this explicitly. I was remembering another commenter who was trying to work out the implications on x-risk of having viewed the basilisk.
EY does say things that directly imply he thinks the post is a basilisk because of an x-risk increase, but he does not say what he thinks that increase is.
Edit: can’t reply, no karma. It means I don’t know if it’s proportional.
At karma 0 I can’t reply to each of you one at a time (rate limited − 10 min per post), so here are my replies in a single large comment:
I would feel differently about nuke designs. As I said in the “why” links, I believe that EY has a bug when it comes to tail risks. This is an attempt to fix that bug.
Basically non-nuke censorship isn’t necessary when you use a reddit engine… and Roko’s post isn’t a nuke.
Yes, though you’d have to say more.
Incredible, thanks for the link
Incredible. Where were you two days ago!
After Roko’s post on the question of enduring torture to reduce existential risks, I was sure they’re must be a SIAI/LWer who was willing to kill for the cause, but no one spoke up. Thanks :p
In this case my estimate is a 5% chance that EY wants to spread the censored material, and used censoring for publicity. Therefore spreading the censored material is questionable as a tactic.
Great! Get EY to rot13 posts instead of censoring them.
You can’t just pretend that the threat is trivial when it’s not.
Fair enough. But you can’t pretend that it’s illegal when it’s not (ie. the torture/murder example you gave).
Actually, I just sent an email. Christians/Republicans are killing ??? people for the same reason they blocked stem cell research: stupidity. Also, why you’re not including EY in that causal chain is beyond me.
I think his blackmail declarations either don’t cover my precommitment, or they also require him to not obey US laws (which are also threats).
Re #1: EY claimed his censorship caused something like 0.0001% risk reduction at the time, hence the amount chosen—it is there to balance his motivation out.
Re #2: Letting Christians/Republicans know that they should be interested in passing a law is not the same as hostage taking or harming someone’s family. I agree that narrow targeting is preferable.
Re #3 and #4: I have a right to tell Christians/Republicans about a law they’re likely to feel should be passed—it’s a right granted to me by the country I live in. I can tell them about that law for whatever reason I want. That’s also a right granted to me by the country I live in. By definition this is legitimate authority, because a legitimate authority granted me these rights.
Yes, hopefully for EY as well
Yes: talk some sense into Eliezer.
The common misunderstanding from these comments is that they didn’t click on the “precommitment” link and read the reasons why the precommitment reduced existential risk.
If I ever do this again, I’ll make the reasoning more explicit. In the mean time I’m not sure what to do except add this comment, and the edit at the bottom of the article for new readers.
By my math it’s an existential risk reduction. Your point was talked about already in the “precommitment” post linked to from this article.
You throw some scary ideas around. Try this one on for size. This post of yours has caused me to revise my probability of the proposition “the best solution to some irrational precommitments is murder” from Pascal’s-wager levels (indescribably improbable) to 0.01%.
There are some people who agree with you (the best way to block legislation is to kill the people who come up with it).
I’d say that since I’ve only been talking about doing things well within my legal rights (using the legal system), that talking about murdering me is a bit “cultish”...
I actually explicitly said what oscar said in the discussion of the precommitment.
I also posted my reasoning for it.
Those are both from the “precommitted” link in my article.
If one loan individual told me that if I didn’t wear my seatbelt, he’d bust my kneecaps, then that would be blackmail.
I think this is closer to if one lone individual said that every time he saw you not wear a seatbelt (which for some reason a law couldn’t get passed for), he’d nudge gun control legislation closer to being enacted (assuming he knew you’d hate gun control legislation)
Also note that it wasn’t when I submitted to the main site...
I should have taken this bet
Sorry to see this so heavily downvoted. Thanks—this made for interesting reading and watching.
If you haven’t checked out the archive of iq.org it’s also a rather interesting blog :)
re: formatting… you don’t happen to use Ubuntu/Chrome, do you?