Personally, I seem to have a few instances available where I’ve done just that.
So now your karma depends significantly on how well you can find a Yudkowskian citation for whatever you’re arguing.
I’m quite sick of this rhetorical trick, of conflating Eliezer with the Sequences in order to justify slinging the word ‘cult’ around. LessWrong is built on the bedrock of the Sequences. To the extent that we get anything done here, it’s because we don’t get bogged down in rehashing any of the million problems that the Sequences solved or dissolved. Honestly, this website would be one giant morass of interconnected arguments over definitions without theseposts alone. The Sequences are valuable and should influence, guide, and control discussion on LessWrong. It’s one of the ways we have of being less wrong! That the Sequences were written by Eliezer Yudkowsky is incidental to their importance on this website. Stop pretending like everything he’s ever written is SIAI-cult-propaganda.
LessWrong is built on the bedrock of the Sequences.
Agreed, but is that doesn’t mean that linking to them is the high watermark of Bayesian thought or whatever you’re trying to measure?
You’d generally link to the sequences when you’re speaking with someone who hasn’t read them. So basically your interactions with new users and trolls now carry far more weight than they should.
Why would you link to the sequences when you’re speaking with someone who’s familiar with them? It’d be like bringing up ‘we breathe oxygen’ every few sentences.
Yes, the sequences are important. But that doesn’t automatically make linking to them a good metric for usefulness to the community.
Stop pretending like everything he’s ever written is SIAI-cult-propaganda.
Never claimed that, never will.
Personally, I seem to have a few instances available where I’ve done just that.
Have you linked to every single comment you think is relevant/useful/thoughtful? To 80% of them? 60?
Personally, I seem to have a few instances available where I’ve done just that.
I’m quite sick of this rhetorical trick, of conflating Eliezer with the Sequences in order to justify slinging the word ‘cult’ around. LessWrong is built on the bedrock of the Sequences. To the extent that we get anything done here, it’s because we don’t get bogged down in rehashing any of the million problems that the Sequences solved or dissolved. Honestly, this website would be one giant morass of interconnected arguments over definitions without these posts alone. The Sequences are valuable and should influence, guide, and control discussion on LessWrong. It’s one of the ways we have of being less wrong! That the Sequences were written by Eliezer Yudkowsky is incidental to their importance on this website. Stop pretending like everything he’s ever written is SIAI-cult-propaganda.
Agreed, but is that doesn’t mean that linking to them is the high watermark of Bayesian thought or whatever you’re trying to measure?
You’d generally link to the sequences when you’re speaking with someone who hasn’t read them. So basically your interactions with new users and trolls now carry far more weight than they should.
Why would you link to the sequences when you’re speaking with someone who’s familiar with them? It’d be like bringing up ‘we breathe oxygen’ every few sentences.
Yes, the sequences are important. But that doesn’t automatically make linking to them a good metric for usefulness to the community.
Never claimed that, never will.
Have you linked to every single comment you think is relevant/useful/thoughtful? To 80% of them? 60?