I don’t see anything insightful about the statement. It rather trival to point out that there were events were torture produced valuable information. Nobody denies that point.
It rather sounds like he doesn’t understand the position against which he’s arguing.
If an interrogator wants valid information, he can see if the stories of several different prisoners agree. He can see if their story checks with other sources of information. etc. It’s like any other kind of intelligence.
It’s not like any other kind of intelligence. This ignores the psychological effects of the torture on the person doing the torturing. Interrogators feel power over a prisioner and get information from them. That makes them spend to much attention of that information in contrast to other information.
This ignores the psychological effects of the torture on the person doing the torturing. Interrogators feel power over a prisioner and get information from them. That makes them spend to much attention of that information in contrast to other information.
And this is different from someone who, say, spends a lot of effort turning an agent, or designing a spy satellite, how?
Beating someone else up triggers primal instincts. Designing a spy satelite or using it’s information doesn’t.
There’s motivated reasoning involving is assessing the information that you get by doing immoral things as high value.
Pretending that there are no revelant psychological effects from the torture on the person doing the torturing just indicates unfamiliarity with the arguments for the position that torture isn’t effective.
I would add that that as far as the description of the battle of Midway in the comment goes, threating people with execution isn’t something that in the US would be officially torture. Prosecutors in Texas do it all the time to get people to agree to plea bargains.
It’s disgusting but not on the same level as putting electrodes on someone’s genitals. It also doesn’t have the same effects on the people doing the threating as allowing them to inflict physical pain.
If you threaten someone with death unless he gives you information you also don’t have the same problem of false information that someone will give you to make the pain stop immediately.
As far as the other example in that battle goes, the author of the comment doesn’t even know whether torture was used and seems to think that there are no psychological tricks that you can play to get information in a short amount of time. Again an indication of not having read much about how interrogation works.
Here on Lesswrong we have AI players who get gatekeepers to let the AI go in two hours of text based communication. As far as I understand Eliezer did that feat without having professional grade training in interrogation. If you accept that’s possible in two hours, do you really think that a professional can’t get useful information from a prisioner in a few hours without using torture?
As far as the other example in that battle goes, the author of the comment doesn’t even know whether torture was used and seems to think that there are no psychological tricks that you can play to get information in a short amount of time.
From what I heard, most of said psychological tricks relay on the person you’re interrogating not knowing that you’re not willing to torture them.
Here on Lesswrong we have AI players who get gatekeepers to let the AI go in two hours of text based communication.
Not reliably. This worked on about half the people.
If you accept that’s possible in two hours, do you really think that a professional can’t get useful information from a prisioner in a few hours without using torture?
Depending on the prisoner. There are certainly many cases of prisoners who don’t talk. If the prisoners are say religious fanatics loyal to their cause, this is certainly very hard.
From what I heard, most of said psychological tricks relay on the person you’re interrogating not knowing that you’re not willing to torture them.
Being able to read bodylanguage very well is also a road to information. You can use Barnum statements to give the subject the impression that you have more knowledge than you really have and then they aren’t doing anything wrong if they tell you what you know already.
Depending on the prisoner. There are certainly many cases of prisoners who don’t talk. If the prisoners are say religious fanatics loyal to their cause, this is certainly very hard.
In the case in the comment the example was an American soldier who probably doesn’t count as religious fanatic. The person who wrote it suggested that the fast transfer of information is evidence of there being torture involved.
It was further evidence for my claim that the person who wrote the supposedly insightful comment didn’t research this topic well.
I case wasn’t that there certain evidence that torture doesn’t work but that the person who wrote the comment isn’t familiar with the subject matter and as a result the comment doesn’t count as insightful.
Not reliably. This worked on about half the people.
I don’t see anything insightful about the statement. It rather trival to point out that there were events were torture produced valuable information. Nobody denies that point. It rather sounds like he doesn’t understand the position against which he’s arguing.
It’s not like any other kind of intelligence. This ignores the psychological effects of the torture on the person doing the torturing. Interrogators feel power over a prisioner and get information from them. That makes them spend to much attention of that information in contrast to other information.
And this is different from someone who, say, spends a lot of effort turning an agent, or designing a spy satellite, how?
Beating someone else up triggers primal instincts. Designing a spy satelite or using it’s information doesn’t.
There’s motivated reasoning involving is assessing the information that you get by doing immoral things as high value.
Pretending that there are no revelant psychological effects from the torture on the person doing the torturing just indicates unfamiliarity with the arguments for the position that torture isn’t effective.
I would add that that as far as the description of the battle of Midway in the comment goes, threating people with execution isn’t something that in the US would be officially torture. Prosecutors in Texas do it all the time to get people to agree to plea bargains. It’s disgusting but not on the same level as putting electrodes on someone’s genitals. It also doesn’t have the same effects on the people doing the threating as allowing them to inflict physical pain.
If you threaten someone with death unless he gives you information you also don’t have the same problem of false information that someone will give you to make the pain stop immediately.
As far as the other example in that battle goes, the author of the comment doesn’t even know whether torture was used and seems to think that there are no psychological tricks that you can play to get information in a short amount of time. Again an indication of not having read much about how interrogation works.
Here on Lesswrong we have AI players who get gatekeepers to let the AI go in two hours of text based communication. As far as I understand Eliezer did that feat without having professional grade training in interrogation. If you accept that’s possible in two hours, do you really think that a professional can’t get useful information from a prisioner in a few hours without using torture?
From what I heard, most of said psychological tricks relay on the person you’re interrogating not knowing that you’re not willing to torture them.
Not reliably. This worked on about half the people.
Depending on the prisoner. There are certainly many cases of prisoners who don’t talk. If the prisoners are say religious fanatics loyal to their cause, this is certainly very hard.
getting half your prisoners to capitulate is still pretty damn good.
Being able to read bodylanguage very well is also a road to information. You can use Barnum statements to give the subject the impression that you have more knowledge than you really have and then they aren’t doing anything wrong if they tell you what you know already.
In the case in the comment the example was an American soldier who probably doesn’t count as religious fanatic. The person who wrote it suggested that the fast transfer of information is evidence of there being torture involved.
It was further evidence for my claim that the person who wrote the supposedly insightful comment didn’t research this topic well.
I case wasn’t that there certain evidence that torture doesn’t work but that the person who wrote the comment isn’t familiar with the subject matter and as a result the comment doesn’t count as insightful.
Nothing works 100% reliably.