I shall now laugh harder than ever when people try to say with a straight face that LessWrong is an Eliezer-cult that suppresses dissent.
After I recently read that the lead poster was a major financial contributor to SIAI, I’d have to call LukeProg’s argument disingenuous if not mendacious.
Rain (who noted that he is a donor to SIAI in a comment) and HoldenKarnofsky (who wrote the post) are two different people, as indicated by their different usernames.
Well, different usernames isn’t usually sufficient evidence that there are two different people, but in this case there’s little doubt about their separability.
I don’t understand. Holden is not a major financial contributor to SIAI. And even if he was: which argument are you talking about, and why is it disingenuous?
If Holden were a major contributor, your argument that the LW editors demonstrated their tolerance for dissent by encouraging the criticisms he made would be bogus. Suppressing the comments of a major donor would be suicidal, and claiming not doing so demonstrates any motive but avoiding suicide would be disingenuous at the least.
If he’s not a donor, my apologies. In any event, you obviously don’t know that he’s a donor if he is, so my conclusion is wrong. I thought Yudkowsky said he was.
I’m confused. Holden doesn’t believe SI is a good organisation to recommend giving money to, he’s listed all those objections to SI in his post, and you somehow assumed he’s been donating money to it?
After I recently read that the lead poster was a major financial contributor to SIAI, I’d have to call LukeProg’s argument disingenuous if not mendacious.
Rain (who noted that he is a donor to SIAI in a comment) and HoldenKarnofsky (who wrote the post) are two different people, as indicated by their different usernames.
Well, different usernames isn’t usually sufficient evidence that there are two different people, but in this case there’s little doubt about their separability.
I don’t understand. Holden is not a major financial contributor to SIAI. And even if he was: which argument are you talking about, and why is it disingenuous?
If Holden were a major contributor, your argument that the LW editors demonstrated their tolerance for dissent by encouraging the criticisms he made would be bogus. Suppressing the comments of a major donor would be suicidal, and claiming not doing so demonstrates any motive but avoiding suicide would be disingenuous at the least.
If he’s not a donor, my apologies. In any event, you obviously don’t know that he’s a donor if he is, so my conclusion is wrong. I thought Yudkowsky said he was.
I’m confused. Holden doesn’t believe SI is a good organisation to recommend giving money to, he’s listed all those objections to SI in his post, and you somehow assumed he’s been donating money to it?
That don’t make sense.