Opportunity cost is a key concept in applied rationality. It costs time to read a post. It’s rational to set up an environment in a way that increases the average quality of the posts that people in the forum get to read.
If there is a genuine lonely dissenter coming to lesswrong for the first time then by definition their views will be unpopular
LessWrong is a place where well-argued dissent is valued and often upvoted.
ChristianKI, “Opportunity cost is a key concept in applied rationality”. Agreed, why pay the time cost on posts rated on popularity on a site dedicated to rationality. They can only reinforce an established point of view.
“Set up an environment in a way that increases the average quality of the posts”. If the quality that is assessed is popularity then the lonely dissenter remains unheard.
“Lesswrong is a place where well argued dissent is valued and often upvoted”. If the dissenters voice is muted because their position is unpopular, which is the meaning of dissent, then your argument does not stand.
I like lesswrong and have no problem with upticks, downticks, good karma, bad karma. If the site removed the punishment for dissent, protagonists would be more likely to challenge established majority views. How could that be a bad thing on a site dedicated to rational discussion? Mods can still control the abusive.
Agreed, why pay the time cost on posts rated on popularity on a site dedicated to rationality. They can only reinforce an established point of view.
If you would care about saying things that are truthful and look at what got upvoted you find from the last week the post UFO Betting: Put Up or Shut Up. The poster dissent in that they believe that UFOs are more likely than most people on LessWrong. They dissent to the point that they choose a username to highlight how they are dissenting.
Voting in LessWrong is often not about whether or not someone agrees with the position that a post takes but about the quality of the post.
You were not downvoted for dissent. You were downvoted for bad reasoning. “AI was going to prove that humanity and science were incompatible by ending us” is a statement that’s too vague to be wrong.
Opportunity cost is a key concept in applied rationality. It costs time to read a post. It’s rational to set up an environment in a way that increases the average quality of the posts that people in the forum get to read.
LessWrong is a place where well-argued dissent is valued and often upvoted.
ChristianKI, “Opportunity cost is a key concept in applied rationality”. Agreed, why pay the time cost on posts rated on popularity on a site dedicated to rationality. They can only reinforce an established point of view.
“Set up an environment in a way that increases the average quality of the posts”. If the quality that is assessed is popularity then the lonely dissenter remains unheard.
“Lesswrong is a place where well argued dissent is valued and often upvoted”. If the dissenters voice is muted because their position is unpopular, which is the meaning of dissent, then your argument does not stand.
I like lesswrong and have no problem with upticks, downticks, good karma, bad karma. If the site removed the punishment for dissent, protagonists would be more likely to challenge established majority views. How could that be a bad thing on a site dedicated to rational discussion? Mods can still control the abusive.
If you would care about saying things that are truthful and look at what got upvoted you find from the last week the post UFO Betting: Put Up or Shut Up. The poster dissent in that they believe that UFOs are more likely than most people on LessWrong. They dissent to the point that they choose a username to highlight how they are dissenting.
Voting in LessWrong is often not about whether or not someone agrees with the position that a post takes but about the quality of the post.
You were not downvoted for dissent. You were downvoted for bad reasoning. “AI was going to prove that humanity and science were incompatible by ending us” is a statement that’s too vague to be wrong.
ChristianKI, I apologize for disturbing the peace of your mind.