If you’ve never been slowly and publicly tortured to death and then resurrected in order to experience it again, due to having pissed off Mexican drug lords, the Pope, the International Red Cross, the Chinese Communist Party, 4chan, the CIA, Clippy, an FAI, Lord Voldemort, the goddess Takhisis, and whoever it is that’s running our simulation, all at once, you’re too risk averse.
(Crappy may not be the best word, though, because it’s not always a bad thing: a country where whoever shares copyrighted material (e.g. on a P2P) without the consent of the copyright holder ends up in prison with probability 1 minus epsilon would be a helluva dystopia IMO.)
If you think of “crappy” in terms of “bad”, and bad in terms of “not instrumentally rational”, then an anti-crappy law enforcement seems like it wouldn’t do something this twisted and society-disrupting.
Well, let’s say that in the great-grandparent by crappy I meant “not instrumentally rational for its own (stated) goals (i.e. enforcing the law)”, and then I replied to myself pointing out that what’s not instrumentally rational for its own stated goals can still be instrumentally rational for the goals of humanity.
Failure doesn’t imply risk. You can fail at challenging your friends to seemingly impossible debates or thinking of solutions to seemingly impossible problems. If you fail at those, you’ve lost nothing—the time is a valid investment in intellectual development. Have you never tried to solve a problem that seems impossible, Eliezer?
Ooh. I like it. Thanks. Say, do you know if Eliezer has posed any impossible challenges to the group? It would be REALLY fun to solve them as a team. (:
If you’ve never been arrested, you’re too law-abiding.
If you’ve never been slowly and publicly tortured to death and then resurrected in order to experience it again, due to having pissed off Mexican drug lords, the Pope, the International Red Cross, the Chinese Communist Party, 4chan, the CIA, Clippy, an FAI, Lord Voldemort, the goddess Takhisis, and whoever it is that’s running our simulation, all at once, you’re too risk averse.
http://abstrusegoose.com/47
http://abstrusegoose.com/312
Your list is conspicuously lacking the scariest entity. I would rather get tortured by all of those at once than give the slightest insult to God.
I agree, God is kind of a dick that way.
Oh crap!
I think Lesswrong is a pretty cool guy. eh downvotes christains and doesnt afraid of god.
Or law enforcement in your country is too crappy.
Then you should be even less law-abiding.
(Crappy may not be the best word, though, because it’s not always a bad thing: a country where whoever shares copyrighted material (e.g. on a P2P) without the consent of the copyright holder ends up in prison with probability 1 minus epsilon would be a helluva dystopia IMO.)
If you think of “crappy” in terms of “bad”, and bad in terms of “not instrumentally rational”, then an anti-crappy law enforcement seems like it wouldn’t do something this twisted and society-disrupting.
Well, let’s say that in the great-grandparent by crappy I meant “not instrumentally rational for its own (stated) goals (i.e. enforcing the law)”, and then I replied to myself pointing out that what’s not instrumentally rational for its own stated goals can still be instrumentally rational for the goals of humanity.
If you’ve never never been arrested, you’re too law-breaking. #umeshumeshisms
Failure doesn’t imply risk. You can fail at challenging your friends to seemingly impossible debates or thinking of solutions to seemingly impossible problems. If you fail at those, you’ve lost nothing—the time is a valid investment in intellectual development. Have you never tried to solve a problem that seems impossible, Eliezer?
Try it. It’s a blast.
Now that you mention it.
Ooh. I like it. Thanks. Say, do you know if Eliezer has posed any impossible challenges to the group? It would be REALLY fun to solve them as a team. (:
Edit: I made one.