So my question, are AI going FOOM and Quantum suicide considered controversial concepts in this community?
To avoid appeal to curiosity-stopping social pressure or authority establishing answers but not understanding of the reasons behind them, the question should be, what are the generally accepted references on these topics, if any (whatever the resulting position)?
Generally accepted references in the LW community are as good as answering what is controversial? In both cases the authority will be the majority or a number of trusted individuals in this community. The differences will be that not only the topic is marked controversial based on the opinions of one community but the reference will be given by the same as well.
I’m pretty much an outsider with almost no mental baggage as I’m oblivious of most of the material in question. The references and resources I linked to in the list are all the result of direct answers to questions posed by me.
I believe that whoever is interested in this community should be given answers to what this community believes. Surely that is authority establishing, it is supposed to be. Someone who has his own answers will either not join in the first place or challenge the currently established answers. And curiosity-stopping social pressure, does that even work? Usually forbidden knowledge will have the opposite effect.
That is, you tell people the truth that you think they should be careful, you leave them clueless or simply provide them with unfiltered information. I think since this is a community devoted to refining rationality it shouldn’t leave people clueless about what it believes might be bogus and it shouldn’t just let them decide on their own as that would undermine the very nature of a community.
Generally accepted references in the LW community are as good as answering what is controversial?
If a topic is declared non-controversial, it’s much better to substantiate with a reference that is supposed to convince of the conclusion than to just state the conclusion itself. The latter is more likely to encourage information cascades.
(I commented on your phrasing of the question, in its capacity to frame the expected discussion, not requested references from you; I failed to parse the last two paragraphs of your comment.)
To avoid appeal to curiosity-stopping social pressure or authority establishing answers but not understanding of the reasons behind them, the question should be, what are the generally accepted references on these topics, if any (whatever the resulting position)?
Generally accepted references in the LW community are as good as answering what is controversial? In both cases the authority will be the majority or a number of trusted individuals in this community. The differences will be that not only the topic is marked controversial based on the opinions of one community but the reference will be given by the same as well.
I’m pretty much an outsider with almost no mental baggage as I’m oblivious of most of the material in question. The references and resources I linked to in the list are all the result of direct answers to questions posed by me.
I believe that whoever is interested in this community should be given answers to what this community believes. Surely that is authority establishing, it is supposed to be. Someone who has his own answers will either not join in the first place or challenge the currently established answers. And curiosity-stopping social pressure, does that even work? Usually forbidden knowledge will have the opposite effect.
That is, you tell people the truth that you think they should be careful, you leave them clueless or simply provide them with unfiltered information. I think since this is a community devoted to refining rationality it shouldn’t leave people clueless about what it believes might be bogus and it shouldn’t just let them decide on their own as that would undermine the very nature of a community.
If a topic is declared non-controversial, it’s much better to substantiate with a reference that is supposed to convince of the conclusion than to just state the conclusion itself. The latter is more likely to encourage information cascades.
(I commented on your phrasing of the question, in its capacity to frame the expected discussion, not requested references from you; I failed to parse the last two paragraphs of your comment.)