To clarify it better: the Roko incident illustrates how seriously some members of LW take nonsense conjectured threats. The fact of censorship is quite irrelevant. I was not really making a stab at the Eliezer with the Roko incident (even though I can see how you can picture it as such as it is easier to respond to the statement under this interpretation).
The HS dropping out and lack of accomplishments are a piece of evidence, and a rational Bayesian agent is better off knowing about such evidence. Especially given all the pieces of other evidence lying around such as ‘world foremost expert on self improvement’ and other introductions like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwriJqBZyoM , which are normally indicative of far greater accomplishments (such as making something which self improved) than ones which took place.
To clarify it better: the Roko incident illustrates how seriously some members of LW take nonsense conjectured threats. The fact of censorship is quite irrelevant.
You can’t have it both ways. If it’s nonsense, then the importance is that someone took it seriously (like a donor), not anyone’s reaction to that someone taking it seriously (like Eliezer). If it’s not nonsense, then someone taking it seriously is not the issue, but someone’s reaction to taking it seriously (the censorship). Make up your mind.
The HS dropping out and lack of accomplishments are a piece of evidence, and a rational Bayesian agent is better off knowing about such evidence.
I don’t believe at any point in my comment did I claim the dropping out of school represented precisely 0 Bayesian evidence...
You can’t have it both ways. If it’s nonsense, then the importance is that someone took it seriously (like a donor), not anyone’s reaction to that someone taking it seriously (like Eliezer). If it’s not nonsense, then someone taking it seriously is not the issue, but someone’s reaction to taking it seriously (the censorship). Make up your mind.
If it is dangerous nonsense then it is important that there is rebuttal (ideally one that works on people whom would fall for the nonsense in first place). Haven’t seen one.
If it is not nonsense, then it outlines that certain decision theories should not be built into FAI.
I don’t believe at any point in my comment did I claim the dropping out of school represented precisely 0 Bayesian evidence...
you really didn’t like me pointing it out, though.
To clarify it better: the Roko incident illustrates how seriously some members of LW take nonsense conjectured threats. The fact of censorship is quite irrelevant. I was not really making a stab at the Eliezer with the Roko incident (even though I can see how you can picture it as such as it is easier to respond to the statement under this interpretation).
The HS dropping out and lack of accomplishments are a piece of evidence, and a rational Bayesian agent is better off knowing about such evidence. Especially given all the pieces of other evidence lying around such as ‘world foremost expert on self improvement’ and other introductions like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwriJqBZyoM , which are normally indicative of far greater accomplishments (such as making something which self improved) than ones which took place.
You can’t have it both ways. If it’s nonsense, then the importance is that someone took it seriously (like a donor), not anyone’s reaction to that someone taking it seriously (like Eliezer). If it’s not nonsense, then someone taking it seriously is not the issue, but someone’s reaction to taking it seriously (the censorship). Make up your mind.
I don’t believe at any point in my comment did I claim the dropping out of school represented precisely 0 Bayesian evidence...
If it is dangerous nonsense then it is important that there is rebuttal (ideally one that works on people whom would fall for the nonsense in first place). Haven’t seen one.
If it is not nonsense, then it outlines that certain decision theories should not be built into FAI.
you really didn’t like me pointing it out, though.