I don’t think I would have any particular problem with murder for an adequate reason, and I wouldn’t take a “murder pill”. A stupid illustration—though I don’t remember seeing this phrase before and I’ve been following OB from the first post.
Example: X wouldn’t Y.
Rejoinder: Z, which is unlike X in relevant ways, would also not Y.
...huh?
More like: Z, which you could expect to be less bothered by Y than X, also would not Y.
A quick Google search reveals the Gandhi phrase on Eliezer’s website:
http://yudkowsky.net/singularity
But I think I saw it in at least one of his papers too.
Current theme: default
Less Wrong (text)
Less Wrong (link)
Arrow keys: Next/previous image
Escape or click: Hide zoomed image
Space bar: Reset image size & position
Scroll to zoom in/out
(When zoomed in, drag to pan; double-click to close)
Keys shown in yellow (e.g., ]) are accesskeys, and require a browser-specific modifier key (or keys).
]
Keys shown in grey (e.g., ?) do not require any modifier keys.
?
Esc
h
f
a
m
v
c
r
q
t
u
o
,
.
/
s
n
e
;
Enter
[
\
k
i
l
=
-
0
′
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
→
↓
←
↑
Space
x
z
`
g
I don’t think I would have any particular problem with murder for an adequate reason, and I wouldn’t take a “murder pill”. A stupid illustration—though I don’t remember seeing this phrase before and I’ve been following OB from the first post.
Example: X wouldn’t Y.
Rejoinder: Z, which is unlike X in relevant ways, would also not Y.
...huh?
More like: Z, which you could expect to be less bothered by Y than X, also would not Y.
A quick Google search reveals the Gandhi phrase on Eliezer’s website:
http://yudkowsky.net/singularity
But I think I saw it in at least one of his papers too.