Do otherwise and YOU and YOUR LOVED ONES will suffer ETERNAL OBLIVION.
This one isn’t right, and is a big difference between religion and threats like extinction-level asteroids or AI disasters: one can free-ride if that’s one’s practice in collective action problems.
...though—curiously—there are some differences between the two pages (count the words in the first sentence). [update: this difference was apparently due to the page being simultaneously cached and updated.]
Comparisons with The Rapture, are insightful, IMHO. I see no good reason to deny them.
It turns out that ETERNAL OBLIVION is too weak. The community now has the doctrine of ETERNAL DAMNATION. For details, see here.
People need to stop being coy. If you know a difference, just spit it out, don’t force people to jump through meaningless hoops like “count the words in the first sentence”.
Downvoted for wasting people’s time with coyness because of a false belief caused by a cache issue.
Uh, no it doesn’t, and in fact this appears to be an actual lie (EDIT: Nope, cache issue) rather than the RotN page being changed since you checked it.
Maybe Adelene meant that “now” is an untruth, in that it implies a change occurring between the timestamp of the comment you reply to and the reply itself. A truthful observation would “RotN has always redirected to a page that, etc.”
“A page that is extremely similar to X” implies “a page that is not X”, assuming normal use of the English language. The rapture of the nerds page has always led to the technological singularity page, and the technological singularity page is not a page that is not the technological singularity page.
Reading the relevant comment with the strictest possible definitions of all the terms, it’s technically correct, but the way that the comment is structured implies an interpretation other than the one that is true, and it could easily have been structured in a way that wouldn’t imply such an interpretation.
Huh. Put like that, I guess I understand now, but it seems as though your refutation could also have been more clear on that point. Thanks for the disentangling!
The pages are subtly different—in the way I described in detail in my original comment. Count the words in the first sentence—the one starting: “A technological singularity is...” to see the difference.
My guess is that a Wikipedia “redirect” allows for a prefix header to be prepended, which would explain the difference.
All four versions of the page—redirect and not, secure and not—start with the same two sentences for me: “A technological singularity is a hypothetical event. It will occur if technological progress becomes so rapid and the growth of super-human intelligence so great that the future (after the singularity) becomes qualitatively different and harder to predict.”
Much time could have been saved had you copied and pasted the two diverging sentences rather than asking people to count the words. For indeed there was a recent change in the page, and if this was the source of the difference, then had you provided the exact sentences then the cause could have been determined quickly, avoiding a lot of back and forth.
Copying and pasting from a comparison, the slightly earlier version is:
A ‴technological singularity‴ is a hypothetical event occurring when technological progress becomes so rapid and the growth of super-human intelligence is so great that the future after the singularity becomes qualitatively different and harder to predict.
The slightly more recent version is:
A ‴technological singularity‴ is a hypothetical event.
The rest of the earlier sentence was split off into separate sentences.
It was the key and only evidence in an accusation of lying, which is a pretty damn serious accusation that should neither be taken lightly nor made lightly. The evidence was small but the role it played in the accusation made it important. If your point is that the accuser should have held their tongue so to speak, you may be right. But they didn’t, and so the question took on importance.
It was the key and only evidence in an accusation of lying, which is a pretty damn serious accusation that should neither be taken lightly nor made lightly. The evidence was small but the role it played in the accusation made it important. If your point is that the accuser should have held their tongue so to speak, you may be right. But they didn’t, and so the question took on importance.
Yes, responding to accusations of lying is important. Making them, not so much. :)
Since it redirects, the relevant history page is the technological singularity history page. Namely, this one. And there was indeed a recent change to the first sentence. See for example this comparison.
Do otherwise and YOU and YOUR LOVED ONES will suffer ETERNAL OBLIVION.
This one isn’t right, and is a big difference between religion and threats like extinction-level asteroids or AI disasters: one can free-ride if that’s one’s practice in collective action problems.
It is true that, this time around there are probabilities attached to some of the outcomes—but the basic END OF THE WORLD rescue pitch remains essentially intact.
I note that some have observed that worse fates may await those who get their priorities wrong at the critical stage.
This whole “outside view” methodology, where you insist on arguing from ignorance even where you have additional knowledge, is insane (outside of avoiding the specific biases such as planning fallacy induced by making additional detail available to your mind, where you indirectly benefit from basing your decision on ignorance).
Perhaps compare a doomsday cult with a drug addict: The outside view (e.g. of family and practitioners) looks one way—while the inside view often looks pretty different.
That’s not what “inside view” means. The way you seem to intend it, it admittedly is a useless tool, but having it as an option in the false dichotomy together with reference class tennis is transparently disingenuous (or stupid).
You seem to be thinking about reference class forecasting. In that particular case, I just meant looking from the outside—but the basic idea is much the same. Doomsday organisations have a pattern. The SIAI isn’t an ordinary one—but it shares many of the same basic traits with them.
Given that a certain fraction of comments are foolish, you can expect that an even larger fraction of votes are foolish, because there are fewer controls on votes (e.g. a voter doesn’t risk his reputation while a commenter does).
Which is why Slashdot (which was a lot more worthwhile in the past than it is now) introduced voting on how other people vote (which Slashdot called metamoderation). Worked pretty well: the decline of Slashdot was mild and gradual compared to the decline of almost every other social site that ever reached Slashdot’s level of quality.
Hmm—I didn’t think of that. Maybe deathbed repentance is similar as well—in that it offers sinners a shot at eternal bliss in return for public endorsement—and maybe a slice of the will.
The outside view of the pitch:
DOOM! - and SOON!
GIVE US ALL YOUR MONEY;
We’ll SAVE THE WORLD; you’ll LIVE FOREVER in HEAVEN;
Do otherwise and YOU and YOUR LOVED ONES will suffer ETERNAL OBLIVION!
Maybe there are some bits missing—but they don’t appear to be critical components of the pattern.
Indeed, this time there are some extra features not invented by those who went before—e.g.:
We can even send you to HEAVEN if you DIE a sinner—IF you PAY MORE MONEY to our partner organisation.
This one isn’t right, and is a big difference between religion and threats like extinction-level asteroids or AI disasters: one can free-ride if that’s one’s practice in collective action problems.
Also: Rapture of the Nerds, Not
It’s now official!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture_of_the_Nerds
...now leads to a page that is extremely similar to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
...though—curiously—there are some differences between the two pages (count the words in the first sentence). [update: this difference was apparently due to the page being simultaneously cached and updated.]
Comparisons with The Rapture, are insightful, IMHO. I see no good reason to deny them.
It turns out that ETERNAL OBLIVION is too weak. The community now has the doctrine of ETERNAL DAMNATION. For details, see here.
People need to stop being coy. If you know a difference, just spit it out, don’t force people to jump through meaningless hoops like “count the words in the first sentence”.
Downvoted for wasting people’s time with coyness because of a false belief caused by a cache issue.
Uh, no it doesn’t, and in fact this appears to be an actual lie (EDIT: Nope, cache issue) rather than the RotN page being changed since you checked it.
Before you start flinging accusations around, perhaps check, reconsider—or get a second opinion?
To clarify, for me, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture_of_the_Nerds still gives me:
Maybe Adelene meant that “now” is an untruth, in that it implies a change occurring between the timestamp of the comment you reply to and the reply itself. A truthful observation would “RotN has always redirected to a page that, etc.”
The implication that you refer to is based on a simple misunderstanding of my comment—and does not represent a “lie” on my part.
Harumpf.
Wait, did you really mean “no, the page has always redirected there” instead of “no, the page does not, in fact, redirect there”?
“A page that is extremely similar to X” implies “a page that is not X”, assuming normal use of the English language. The rapture of the nerds page has always led to the technological singularity page, and the technological singularity page is not a page that is not the technological singularity page.
Reading the relevant comment with the strictest possible definitions of all the terms, it’s technically correct, but the way that the comment is structured implies an interpretation other than the one that is true, and it could easily have been structured in a way that wouldn’t imply such an interpretation.
Huh. Put like that, I guess I understand now, but it seems as though your refutation could also have been more clear on that point. Thanks for the disentangling!
The pages are subtly different—in the way I described in detail in my original comment. Count the words in the first sentence—the one starting: “A technological singularity is...” to see the difference.
My guess is that a Wikipedia “redirect” allows for a prefix header to be prepended, which would explain the difference.
All four versions of the page—redirect and not, secure and not—start with the same two sentences for me: “A technological singularity is a hypothetical event. It will occur if technological progress becomes so rapid and the growth of super-human intelligence so great that the future (after the singularity) becomes qualitatively different and harder to predict.”
I suspect you have a cache issue.
That seems likely. I used http://hidemyass.com/proxy/ - and it gives a more consistent picture.
Much time could have been saved had you copied and pasted the two diverging sentences rather than asking people to count the words. For indeed there was a recent change in the page, and if this was the source of the difference, then had you provided the exact sentences then the cause could have been determined quickly, avoiding a lot of back and forth.
Copying and pasting from a comparison, the slightly earlier version is:
The slightly more recent version is:
The rest of the earlier sentence was split off into separate sentences.
Not that I am necessarily one to talk but much time could have been saved if nobody argued about such an irrelevant technicality. ;)
It was the key and only evidence in an accusation of lying, which is a pretty damn serious accusation that should neither be taken lightly nor made lightly. The evidence was small but the role it played in the accusation made it important. If your point is that the accuser should have held their tongue so to speak, you may be right. But they didn’t, and so the question took on importance.
Yes, responding to accusations of lying is important. Making them, not so much. :)
*nods* *edits ancestral comment*
Adelene, you are still being very discourteous!
I recommend that you calm down, try to be polite—and go a bit easier in the future on the baseless accusations and recriminations.
Since it redirects, the relevant history page is the technological singularity history page. Namely, this one. And there was indeed a recent change to the first sentence. See for example this comparison.
I’m seeing the redirect on the non-secure version.
I’m seeing the same thing as timtyler.
It is true that, this time around there are probabilities attached to some of the outcomes—but the basic END OF THE WORLD rescue pitch remains essentially intact.
I note that some have observed that worse fates may await those who get their priorities wrong at the critical stage.
I don’t understand why downvote this. It does sound like an accurate representation of the outside view.
This whole “outside view” methodology, where you insist on arguing from ignorance even where you have additional knowledge, is insane (outside of avoiding the specific biases such as planning fallacy induced by making additional detail available to your mind, where you indirectly benefit from basing your decision on ignorance).
In many cases outside view, and in particular reference class tennis, is a form of filtering the evidence, and thus “not technically” lying, a tool of anti-epistemology and dark arts, fit for deceiving yourself and others.
Perhaps compare a doomsday cult with a drug addict:
The outside view (e.g. of family and practitioners) looks one way—while the inside view often looks pretty different.
That’s not what “inside view” means. The way you seem to intend it, it admittedly is a useless tool, but having it as an option in the false dichotomy together with reference class tennis is transparently disingenuous (or stupid).
You seem to be thinking about reference class forecasting. In that particular case, I just meant looking from the outside—but the basic idea is much the same. Doomsday organisations have a pattern. The SIAI isn’t an ordinary one—but it shares many of the same basic traits with them.
We all already know about this pattern match. Its reiteration is boring and detracts from the conversation.
If this particular critique has been made more clearly elsewhere, perhaps let me know, and I will happily link to there in the future.
Update 2011-05-30: There’s now this recent article: The “Rapture” and the “Singularity” Have Much in Common—which makes a rather similar point.
It may have been downvoted for the caps.
Given that a certain fraction of comments are foolish, you can expect that an even larger fraction of votes are foolish, because there are fewer controls on votes (e.g. a voter doesn’t risk his reputation while a commenter does).
Which is why Slashdot (which was a lot more worthwhile in the past than it is now) introduced voting on how other people vote (which Slashdot called metamoderation). Worked pretty well: the decline of Slashdot was mild and gradual compared to the decline of almost every other social site that ever reached Slashdot’s level of quality.
Yes: votes should probably not be anonymous—and on “various other” social networking sites, they are not.
Metafilter, for one. It is hard for an online community to avoid becoming worthless, but Metafilter has avoided that for 10 years.
Perhaps downvoted for suggesting that the salvation-for-cash meme is a modern one. I upvoted, though.
Hmm—I didn’t think of that. Maybe deathbed repentance is similar as well—in that it offers sinners a shot at eternal bliss in return for public endorsement—and maybe a slice of the will.
We all already know about this pattern match. Reiterating it is boring and detracts from the conversation, and I downvote any such comment I see.