Eliezer: I think that you misunderstand Roko, but that doesn’t really matter, as he seems to understand you fairly well right now and to be learning effectively.
Unknown: Not at all. Utility maximization is very likely to lead to counterintuitive actions, and might even lead to humanly useless ones, but the particular actions it leads to are NOT whatever salient actions you wish to justify but are rather some very specific set of actions that have to be discovered.
Seriously, you NEED to stop reasoning with rough verbal approximations of the math and actually USE the math instead. Agreement emerges from Bayes, but the mere fact that you call something agreement doesn’t strongly suggest that it is Bayesian.
Seriously I have tried to communicate with you, Carl has tried, and Nick has tried. You aren’t interested in figuring out the actual counter-intuitive consequences of your beliefs, as you are too afraid that you would have to act, you know, counter-intuitively, which in actuality you don’t do at all. As far as I can tell you aren’t worth any of us wasting any more time on.
Lara: invertebrates are, I believe, generally believed to have MUCH simpler sets of neurotransmitters than vertebrates. Think how few genes fruit flies have.
Elezier wrote: > Vassar, surprised to see you seconding Roko
Eliezer: I think that you misunderstand Roko, but that doesn’t really matter, as he seems to understand you fairly well right now and to be learning effectively.
A pity, mostly—he had a lot of useful contributions, got in an argument with Eliezer, and left after deleting all of his posts. I think he came back briefly a few months afterwards to clarify some of his positions, but didn’t stay long. It’s the kind of drama that seems unfortunately common in online communities :P
Eliezer: I think that you misunderstand Roko, but that doesn’t really matter, as he seems to understand you fairly well right now and to be learning effectively.
Unknown: Not at all. Utility maximization is very likely to lead to counterintuitive actions, and might even lead to humanly useless ones, but the particular actions it leads to are NOT whatever salient actions you wish to justify but are rather some very specific set of actions that have to be discovered. Seriously, you NEED to stop reasoning with rough verbal approximations of the math and actually USE the math instead. Agreement emerges from Bayes, but the mere fact that you call something agreement doesn’t strongly suggest that it is Bayesian. Seriously I have tried to communicate with you, Carl has tried, and Nick has tried. You aren’t interested in figuring out the actual counter-intuitive consequences of your beliefs, as you are too afraid that you would have to act, you know, counter-intuitively, which in actuality you don’t do at all. As far as I can tell you aren’t worth any of us wasting any more time on.
Lara: invertebrates are, I believe, generally believed to have MUCH simpler sets of neurotransmitters than vertebrates. Think how few genes fruit flies have.
Elezier wrote: > Vassar, surprised to see you seconding Roko
So WHO is Roko?
An ex-member who deleted all of his posts.
Thanks, I googled for roko + lesswrong and after reading some comments this whole Roko-affair seems to be kinda creepy...
A pity, mostly—he had a lot of useful contributions, got in an argument with Eliezer, and left after deleting all of his posts. I think he came back briefly a few months afterwards to clarify some of his positions, but didn’t stay long. It’s the kind of drama that seems unfortunately common in online communities :P