More likely, it would discourage object-level debates about slavery (both for and against), so that Americans from both North and South could debate about something else: rationality, etc.
Notice your confusion. Either your model is false or the data is wrong. You’ve decided the data (what I told you) was wrong.
But could your model be wrong?
How would such a policy support slavery? Why do I think that? Pretend that I am as intelligent as you and try to determine what would make you believe that.
Should I even use lies to support my case, because the most important thing is to win, and to destroy all those murderous socialism-sympathisers? Because otherwise I am dishonoring the memory of the millions who were tortured and murdered in the name of… things you defend, kind of. Is that the right thing to do?
Yes. You should. You are a rationalist and you should win. Never deceive yourself that losing is appropriate! It is only ever appropriate to win. It is only ever good to win. Losing is never good.
If you find this too complicated, think about it in the simplest possible terms. The truth is the truth and to win is to win.
If you truly oppose me to the same extent Arthur Chu opposes casual racism on the Internet and I oppose the concept of capitalism you should do whatever you can to win. If you in your full art as a rationalist decide that is the path to winning you must take that path.
But I don’t think you do have that level of commitment in you. There’s a very large difference between identifying a social suboptimality and truly having something to protect. And I think that even in the face of all the things you said, all the very true and very real horrors of Marxism, you could not even summon the internal strength to protect yourself against that.
This is a sort of resolve that Less Wrong does not teach. It’s only found in true adversity, in situations where you have something to protect and you must fight to protect it.
I do not think you have fought that fight. Very few people have.
You provided data of your imagination, I provided data of mine… there is no way to determine the outcome experimentally… even if we asked Eliezer, he couldn’t know for sure what exactly Eliezer1820 would do… is there a meaningful way to settle this? I don’t see any.
I’m sorry, are you aware of the reasons why I think what I do? Have you thought about this for even one minute?
If you’re truly incapable of reconstructing that then maybe there isn’t anything we can do. But I don’t believe you’re incapable.
I think the scenario you describe is exactly what would happen with 1820′s LW. I also think that provides material support for slavery. I also think that when slavery was brought up, probably it would be similarly treated to discussions of racism now.
Informed by that, think about it for five minutes, and PM me your answer. We can go from there.
Notice your confusion. Either your model is false or the data is wrong. You’ve decided the data (what I told you) was wrong.
But could your model be wrong?
How would such a policy support slavery? Why do I think that? Pretend that I am as intelligent as you and try to determine what would make you believe that.
Yes. You should. You are a rationalist and you should win. Never deceive yourself that losing is appropriate! It is only ever appropriate to win. It is only ever good to win. Losing is never good.
If you find this too complicated, think about it in the simplest possible terms. The truth is the truth and to win is to win.
If you truly oppose me to the same extent Arthur Chu opposes casual racism on the Internet and I oppose the concept of capitalism you should do whatever you can to win. If you in your full art as a rationalist decide that is the path to winning you must take that path.
But I don’t think you do have that level of commitment in you. There’s a very large difference between identifying a social suboptimality and truly having something to protect. And I think that even in the face of all the things you said, all the very true and very real horrors of Marxism, you could not even summon the internal strength to protect yourself against that.
This is a sort of resolve that Less Wrong does not teach. It’s only found in true adversity, in situations where you have something to protect and you must fight to protect it.
I do not think you have fought that fight. Very few people have.
Yudkowsky says the Art cannot be for itself alone, or it will lapse into a wastefulness. This is what has happened to Less Wrong.
You provided data of your imagination, I provided data of mine… there is no way to determine the outcome experimentally… even if we asked Eliezer, he couldn’t know for sure what exactly Eliezer1820 would do… is there a meaningful way to settle this? I don’t see any.
I’m sorry, are you aware of the reasons why I think what I do? Have you thought about this for even one minute?
If you’re truly incapable of reconstructing that then maybe there isn’t anything we can do. But I don’t believe you’re incapable.
I think the scenario you describe is exactly what would happen with 1820′s LW. I also think that provides material support for slavery. I also think that when slavery was brought up, probably it would be similarly treated to discussions of racism now.
Informed by that, think about it for five minutes, and PM me your answer. We can go from there.
Yes, you’re part of a movement that believes lying is justified for their cause and as a result have started to believe their own lies.