Your math is wrong. It was always wrong, and it is even more wrong now that it is clear that you are failing to influence Eliezer’s behavior (for which I am thankful).
Reminder: Exposure to the basilisk can cause and has caused immediate severe mental torment to people with OCD or strong OCD tendencies. Again, this has already happened (at least two reports that I know of). So that’s like posting a video that gives vulnerable people epileptic fits, like that infamous Pokemon episode.
“Please remember”, he said in a dryly sarcastic voice, “that not everyone’s mind is an invincible fortress like yours.”
The appropriate way of dealing with this issue is by posting some kind of trigger warning or posting in rot13. And then recommending therapy. Not censorship.
What I want to know is why Eliezer is still advertising the fact that members of SIAI are psychologically incapable of even considering the kinds of issues that come along with thinking about singularities. I can kind of understanding him letting that slip in the heat of the moment while in the throes of his emotional outburst but why is still saying it now? Why wouldn’t he be trying to do whatever he can to convey that the important thing in his mind is the deep game theoretical issue that nobody else is sophisticated enough to understand?
Sure, even if someone at the SIAI has a disability in one area they could well make valuable contributions in another. But that doesn’t make it something to boast about publicly without taking care to emphasise that not everyone else is so crippled.
If you are vulnerable to epileptic fits don’t work in a pokemon factory—even if your factory only creates ‘good’ pokemon!
My interpretation (which Eliezer’s above comment seems to have confirmed) was, Eliezer deleted Roko’s comment for the exact same reason he would have deleted an epileptic-fit-inducing animation. Simply to protect some of the readers, many of whom might not even be aware of their own vulnerability, for this is not exacly a commonly triggered or recognized weakness.
I felt all the rest with ‘existential risk’ and ‘supressed ideas’ was just added by people in the absence of real information. Like, someone saw ‘existential risk’ near (in?) Roko’s comment and heard that Eliezer is worried about ‘existential risks’ so they concluded that must have been the reason the post was deleted. This sort of thing tends to happen, especially when they were already critical, such as timtyler, who was taking potshots at Eliezer and the SIAI even before Roko’s post was deleted (top 2 comments). (Yes, I mention timtyler because I know his opinion could have affected yours)
My big problem with this theory is that it requires you to have been making a basic mistake. Which is always suspect, since shown yourself a smart and competent poster. (That some other posters, such as WFG were foolish is a given, I’m afraid.) So the simplest way to resolve my confusion is to ask you directly, hence this comment.
Why do you dismiss the above interpretation? What do you see that I don’t?
Since you have already replied to the grandparent with a partial affirmation could you please confirm or (I hope) deny the primary contention of said comment?
My interpretation (which Eliezer’s above comment seems to have confirmed) was, Eliezer deleted Roko’s comment for the exact same reason he would have deleted an epileptic-fit-inducing animation.
That is another idiot ball which I have assumed you are not guilty of bearing. But if you are giving support to a comment which presents such an interpretation it warrants clarification.
Depends what you mean by “exact same”. I deleted the basilisk strictly to protect readers, yes. I didn’t realize at the time that there was also an immediate damage mode for unusually vulnerable readers.
By my math it’s an existential risk reduction. Your point was talked about already in the “precommitment” post linked to from this article.
Your math is wrong. It was always wrong, and it is even more wrong now that it is clear that you are failing to influence Eliezer’s behavior (for which I am thankful).
Why not share ‘the Basilisk’ with more people every time EY censors a post instead of raising existential risk?
Is this comment the forum’s first meta-basilisk?
Reminder: Exposure to the basilisk can cause and has caused immediate severe mental torment to people with OCD or strong OCD tendencies. Again, this has already happened (at least two reports that I know of). So that’s like posting a video that gives vulnerable people epileptic fits, like that infamous Pokemon episode.
“Please remember”, he said in a dryly sarcastic voice, “that not everyone’s mind is an invincible fortress like yours.”
The appropriate way of dealing with this issue is by posting some kind of trigger warning or posting in rot13. And then recommending therapy. Not censorship.
Sorry, I think this is lost on me, why did you post this in reply to my comment?
What I want to know is why Eliezer is still advertising the fact that members of SIAI are psychologically incapable of even considering the kinds of issues that come along with thinking about singularities. I can kind of understanding him letting that slip in the heat of the moment while in the throes of his emotional outburst but why is still saying it now? Why wouldn’t he be trying to do whatever he can to convey that the important thing in his mind is the deep game theoretical issue that nobody else is sophisticated enough to understand?
Sure, even if someone at the SIAI has a disability in one area they could well make valuable contributions in another. But that doesn’t make it something to boast about publicly without taking care to emphasise that not everyone else is so crippled.
If you are vulnerable to epileptic fits don’t work in a pokemon factory—even if your factory only creates ‘good’ pokemon!
wedrifid
My interpretation (which Eliezer’s above comment seems to have confirmed) was, Eliezer deleted Roko’s comment for the exact same reason he would have deleted an epileptic-fit-inducing animation. Simply to protect some of the readers, many of whom might not even be aware of their own vulnerability, for this is not exacly a commonly triggered or recognized weakness.
I felt all the rest with ‘existential risk’ and ‘supressed ideas’ was just added by people in the absence of real information. Like, someone saw ‘existential risk’ near (in?) Roko’s comment and heard that Eliezer is worried about ‘existential risks’ so they concluded that must have been the reason the post was deleted. This sort of thing tends to happen, especially when they were already critical, such as timtyler, who was taking potshots at Eliezer and the SIAI even before Roko’s post was deleted (top 2 comments). (Yes, I mention timtyler because I know his opinion could have affected yours)
My big problem with this theory is that it requires you to have been making a basic mistake. Which is always suspect, since shown yourself a smart and competent poster. (That some other posters, such as WFG were foolish is a given, I’m afraid.) So the simplest way to resolve my confusion is to ask you directly, hence this comment.
Why do you dismiss the above interpretation? What do you see that I don’t?
Yes, whole rafts of stuff are being made-up here.
Since you have already replied to the grandparent with a partial affirmation could you please confirm or (I hope) deny the primary contention of said comment?
That is another idiot ball which I have assumed you are not guilty of bearing. But if you are giving support to a comment which presents such an interpretation it warrants clarification.
Depends what you mean by “exact same”. I deleted the basilisk strictly to protect readers, yes. I didn’t realize at the time that there was also an immediate damage mode for unusually vulnerable readers.