The common misunderstanding from these comments is that they didn’t click on the “precommitment” link and read the reasons why the precommitment reduced existential risk.
If I ever do this again, I’ll make the reasoning more explicit. In the mean time I’m not sure what to do except add this comment, and the edit at the bottom of the article for new readers.
If I observe that I did read the thread to which you refer, and I still think your current course of action is stupid and crazy (and that’s coming from someone who agrees with you about the censorship in question being wrong!) will that change your opinion even slightly?
I did read the original precommitment discussions. I thought your original threat was non-serious, and presented as an interesting thought experiment. I was with you on the subject of anti-censorship. When I discovered that your precommitment was serious, you lost the moral high-ground in my eyes, and entered territory where I will not follow.
The common misunderstanding from these comments is that they didn’t click on the “precommitment” link and read the reasons why the precommitment reduced existential risk.
If I ever do this again, I’ll make the reasoning more explicit. In the mean time I’m not sure what to do except add this comment, and the edit at the bottom of the article for new readers.
If I observe that I did read the thread to which you refer, and I still think your current course of action is stupid and crazy (and that’s coming from someone who agrees with you about the censorship in question being wrong!) will that change your opinion even slightly?
I did read the original precommitment discussions. I thought your original threat was non-serious, and presented as an interesting thought experiment. I was with you on the subject of anti-censorship. When I discovered that your precommitment was serious, you lost the moral high-ground in my eyes, and entered territory where I will not follow.