Nit pick: There is a 90%+ chance it’s an exercise in collective inadequacy. Do you think that this proposal is positive EV because of the value of running such an exercise?
Given the probabilities involved, that implies that the net benefit of running an exercise in collective adequacy, is more than 10x larger than the cost of having the home page blown up. That seems large.
Also, simply increasing the karma cut-off would allow the same exercise to be run with a lower chance of blowing up the home page. Would this be so much less valuable than the current proposal, as an exercise in collective (in)adequacy?
Personally, on net, I think LessWrong shouldn’t create the button. I think it probabilistically destroys some real value and is symbolic of destroying real and even greater value. Plus, I think there’s symbolic value in not creating buttons that launch nukes.
It’s an exercise in collective adequacy.
Nit pick: There is a 90%+ chance it’s an exercise in collective inadequacy. Do you think that this proposal is positive EV because of the value of running such an exercise?
Given the probabilities involved, that implies that the net benefit of running an exercise in collective adequacy, is more than 10x larger than the cost of having the home page blown up. That seems large.
Also, simply increasing the karma cut-off would allow the same exercise to be run with a lower chance of blowing up the home page. Would this be so much less valuable than the current proposal, as an exercise in collective (in)adequacy?
Personally, on net, I think LessWrong shouldn’t create the button. I think it probabilistically destroys some real value and is symbolic of destroying real and even greater value. Plus, I think there’s symbolic value in not creating buttons that launch nukes.
Oh I support increasing the karma cutoff.
I do think that running such an exercise is valuable, if only because it allows us to learn things about our community.