Out of curiosity, what is the fraction of LW posters that believes this is a genuine risk?
Vanishingly small—the post was deleted by Eliezer (was that what, a year ago? two?) because it gave some people he knew nightmares, but I don’t remember anybody actually complaining about it. Most of the ensuing drama was about whether Eliezer was right in deleting it. The whole thing has been a waste of everybody’s time and attention (as community drama over moderation almost always is).
Most of the ensuing drama was about whether Eliezer was right in deleting it. The whole thing has been a waste of everybody’s time and attention (as community drama over moderation almost always is).
‘Moderation’ was precisely the opposite of the response that occurred. Hysterical verbal abuse is not the same thing as deleting a post and mere censorship would not have created such a lasting negative impact. While ‘moderator censorship’ was technically involved the incident is a decidedly non-central member of that class.
Eliezer specifically denied the possibility of a basilisk, although no theory of acausal blackmail in reflective equilibrium exists yet. Roko’s post was deleted because of how people reacted to it, not because it was a real memetic hazard.
ETA: on a second review, that’s the reason Yudkowsky gave after the fact. I’m not convinced it was his initial motivation.
Well, I guess the standard caveat applies here: there’s nothing that has really 0 chance of happening. I don’t know about, but if it turned out acausal blackmail was logically impossible, that would deserve a probability as small as we can allow ourselves.
I’d say it about as much of a risk as a self-loathing basilisk who punishes only people who supported its creation. It’s wrong in the same way Pascal’s Wager is wrong, with some extra creepiness added.
Vanishingly small—the post was deleted by Eliezer (was that what, a year ago? two?) because it gave some people he knew nightmares, but I don’t remember anybody actually complaining about it. Most of the ensuing drama was about whether Eliezer was right in deleting it. The whole thing has been a waste of everybody’s time and attention (as community drama over moderation almost always is).
‘Moderation’ was precisely the opposite of the response that occurred. Hysterical verbal abuse is not the same thing as deleting a post and mere censorship would not have created such a lasting negative impact. While ‘moderator censorship’ was technically involved the incident is a decidedly non-central member of that class.
Nearly four years ago to the day, going by RationalWiki’s chronology.
Talking about it presumably makes it feel like a newer, fresher issue than it is.
Eliezer specifically denied the possibility of a basilisk, although no theory of acausal blackmail in reflective equilibrium exists yet.
Roko’s post was deleted because of how people reacted to it, not because it was a real memetic hazard.
ETA: on a second review, that’s the reason Yudkowsky gave after the fact. I’m not convinced it was his initial motivation.
Surely there’s some non-zero possibility of acausal blackmail?
Well, I guess the standard caveat applies here: there’s nothing that has really 0 chance of happening.
I don’t know about, but if it turned out acausal blackmail was logically impossible, that would deserve a probability as small as we can allow ourselves.
Isn’t this precisely what TDT solves?
I sincerely have no idea. I don’t even know if TDT stands on its own as a completed theory.
I’d say it about as much of a risk as a self-loathing basilisk who punishes only people who supported its creation. It’s wrong in the same way Pascal’s Wager is wrong, with some extra creepiness added.
Given that nobody else ever complained, AFAIK, it seem that he was the only person troubled by that post.
EDIT: not.
I got email from basilisk victims, as noted elsewhere in this thread (this is why I created the RW article, ’cos individual email doesn’t scale).
Point taken.