You seem not to have read (or understood) the grandparent. The list you are attempting to satire was presented as an example of what not to do. The actual point of the parent is that bothering to provide such a list is almost as much of a confusion as the very kind of escalation you are attempting.
It’s just a precommitment that includes some rather irrelevant bluster.
I entirely agree. The remaining bluster is dead weight that serves to give the blackmail advocate more credit than is due. Notion of “precommitment” is also unnecessary. It has only remained in this conversation for the purpose of bridging an inferential gap with people still burdened with decades old decision theory.
You seem not to have read (or understood) the grandparent.
I did. It seems you misunderstood my comment—I’ll edit it if I can see a way to easily improve the clarity.
My point was that the same logic could be applied, by someone who accepts the hypothetical blacmailer’s argument, to your description of “one single level of precommittment (or TDT policy) against complying with blackmailed … the description of ‘multiple levels of precommitment” made by the blackmailer fits squarely into the category ‘blackmail’.
As such, your comment is not exactly strong evidence to someone who doesn’t already agree with you.
As such, you comment is not exactly strong evidence to someone who doesn’t already agree with you.
Muga, please look at the context again. I was arguing against (a small detail mentioned by) Eliezer. Eliezer does mostly agree with me on such matters. Once you reread bearing that in mind you will hopefully understand why when I assumed that you merely misunderstood the comment in the context I was being charitable.
My point was that the same logic could be applied, by someone who accepts the hypothetical blacmailer’s argument, to your description of “one single level of precommittment (or TDT policy) against complying with blackmailed … the description of ‘multiple levels of precommitment” made by the blackmailer fits squarely into the category ‘blackmail’.
I have no particular disagreement, that point is very similar to what I was attempting to convey. Again, I was not attempting to persuade optimistic blackmailer advocates of anything. I was speaking to someone resistant to blackmail about an implementation detail of the blackmail resistance.
The ‘evidence’ I need to provide to blackmailers is Argumentum ad thermitium. It’s more than sufficient.
The ‘evidence’ I need to provide to blackmailers is Argumentum ad thermitium. It’s more than sufficient.
Indeed. Sorry, since the conversation you posted in the middle of was one between those resistant to blackmail, like yourself, and those as yet unconvinced or unclear on the logic involved … I thought you were contributing to the conversation.
After all, thermite seems a little harsh for blackmail victims.
I was jokingly restating my justification; since, while I agree that “argumentum ad thermitium” (as you put it) is an excellent response to blackmailers, it’s worth having a strategy for dealing with blackmailer reasoning beyond that—for dealing with all the situations you will actually encounter such reasoning, those involving humans.
I guess it wasn’t very funny even before I killed it so thoroughly.
Anyway, this subthread has now become entirely devoted to discussing our misreadings of each other. Tapping out.
You seem not to have read (or understood) the grandparent. The list you are attempting to satire was presented as an example of what not to do. The actual point of the parent is that bothering to provide such a list is almost as much of a confusion as the very kind of escalation you are attempting.
I entirely agree. The remaining bluster is dead weight that serves to give the blackmail advocate more credit than is due. Notion of “precommitment” is also unnecessary. It has only remained in this conversation for the purpose of bridging an inferential gap with people still burdened with decades old decision theory.
I did. It seems you misunderstood my comment—I’ll edit it if I can see a way to easily improve the clarity.
My point was that the same logic could be applied, by someone who accepts the hypothetical blacmailer’s argument, to your description of “one single level of precommittment (or TDT policy) against complying with blackmailed … the description of ‘multiple levels of precommitment” made by the blackmailer fits squarely into the category ‘blackmail’.
As such, your comment is not exactly strong evidence to someone who doesn’t already agree with you.
Muga, please look at the context again. I was arguing against (a small detail mentioned by) Eliezer. Eliezer does mostly agree with me on such matters. Once you reread bearing that in mind you will hopefully understand why when I assumed that you merely misunderstood the comment in the context I was being charitable.
I have no particular disagreement, that point is very similar to what I was attempting to convey. Again, I was not attempting to persuade optimistic blackmailer advocates of anything. I was speaking to someone resistant to blackmail about an implementation detail of the blackmail resistance.
The ‘evidence’ I need to provide to blackmailers is Argumentum ad thermitium. It’s more than sufficient.
Well, I’m glad to hear you mostly agree with me.
Indeed. Sorry, since the conversation you posted in the middle of was one between those resistant to blackmail, like yourself, and those as yet unconvinced or unclear on the logic involved … I thought you were contributing to the conversation.
After all, thermite seems a little harsh for blackmail victims.
This makes no sense as a reply to anything written on this entire page.
… seriously? Well, OK.
I was jokingly restating my justification; since, while I agree that “argumentum ad thermitium” (as you put it) is an excellent response to blackmailers, it’s worth having a strategy for dealing with blackmailer reasoning beyond that—for dealing with all the situations you will actually encounter such reasoning, those involving humans.
I guess it wasn’t very funny even before I killed it so thoroughly.
Anyway, this subthread has now become entirely devoted to discussing our misreadings of each other. Tapping out.