Small note, “jargon” and “none of the above” seem to be missing codes/numbers in the philosophy table.
Edit: Also, the the tagged community write-ins is a 404 (there’s a missing slash in the URL).
Further edit: I suspect you’ve misunderstood the one “NERB”; I think it’s complaining about the discussion of Roko’s Basilisk, not about there not being enough of it. The question asked about problems, right? (I wouldn’t bother pointing this out, as as you’ve said this is necessarily messy and subjectve, but this one particular one seemed directly backwards.)
Small note, “jargon” and “none of the above” seem to be missing codes/numbers in the philosophy table.
That’s because they didn’t get used. I should probably just remove them.
Edit: Also, the the tagged community write-ins is a 404 (there’s a missing slash in the URL).
Fixed.
(I wouldn’t bother pointing this out, as as you’ve said this is necessarily messy and subjectve, but this one particular one seemed directly backwards.)
You seem to be correct, I was trying really hard to power through these and I think I mixed these two up:
14:41 < namespace> “To be fair I wasn’t around for the peak, however, I’d cite the aforementioned Basilisk. It suddenly presents a sort of ‘Rational Devil’ to a super intelligent Al’s ‘Rational Messiah’. It’s silly and mildly off-putting. Thankfully the information on the site, especially the Sequences, is far too useful to just toss aside. | NERB”
14:42 < namespace> “A tendency to hyperfocus on the ridiculousness of Roko’s Basilisk stopped most people (inside and outside of LessWrong) from thinking about more-plausible acausal-trade-based ideas. | TMRB”
Won’t fix though because the numbers come out the same anyway.
Small note, “jargon” and “none of the above” seem to be missing codes/numbers in the philosophy table.
Edit: Also, the the tagged community write-ins is a 404 (there’s a missing slash in the URL).
Further edit: I suspect you’ve misunderstood the one “NERB”; I think it’s complaining about the discussion of Roko’s Basilisk, not about there not being enough of it. The question asked about problems, right? (I wouldn’t bother pointing this out, as as you’ve said this is necessarily messy and subjectve, but this one particular one seemed directly backwards.)
That’s because they didn’t get used. I should probably just remove them.
Fixed.
You seem to be correct, I was trying really hard to power through these and I think I mixed these two up:
14:41 < namespace> “To be fair I wasn’t around for the peak, however, I’d cite the aforementioned Basilisk. It suddenly presents a sort of ‘Rational Devil’ to a super intelligent Al’s ‘Rational Messiah’. It’s silly and mildly off-putting. Thankfully the information on the site, especially the Sequences, is far too useful to just toss aside. | NERB”
14:42 < namespace> “A tendency to hyperfocus on the ridiculousness of Roko’s Basilisk stopped most people (inside and outside of LessWrong) from thinking about more-plausible acausal-trade-based ideas. | TMRB”
Won’t fix though because the numbers come out the same anyway.
OK, thanks!