Congratulations[1]. You have managed to describe my position substantially more eloquently and accurately than I could do so myself. I find myself scared and slightly in awe.
Combining this with the above, I would predict TLW to be much less disturbed by a statement of “for the purpose of Good Heart tokens, we will err on the broad side in terms of non-intrusively detecting exploitative behavior and disallowing monetary redemption of tokens accumulated in such a way, but for all other moderation purposes, the level of scrutiny applied will remain as it was”.
Correct, even to the point of correctly predicting “much less” but not zero.
The other and arguably more important half of things here is that the higher-consequence action has been overlaid onto an existing habitual action in an invasive way. If you were playing a board game, moving resource tokens to your area contrary to the rules of the game might be considered antisocial cheating in the real world. However, if the host suddenly announced that the tokens in the game would be cashed out in currency and that stealing them would be considered equivalent to stealing money from their purse, while the game were ongoing, I would expect some people to get up and leave, even if they weren’t intending to cheat, because the tradeoff parameters around other “noise” risks have suddenly been pulled out from underneath them.
This is a very good analogy. One other implication: it also likely results in consequences for future games with said host, not just the current one. The game has changed.
=*=*=*=
I ended up walking away from LessWrong for the (remaining) duration of Good Hart Week; I am debating as to if I should delete my account and walk away permanently, or if I should “just” operate under the assumption[2] that all information I post on this site can and will be later adversarially used against me[3][4] (which includes, but is not limited to, not posting controversial opinions in general).
I was initially leaning toward the former; I think I will do the latter.
This is my default assumption on most sites; I was operating under the (erroneous) assumption that a site whose main distinguishing feature was supposedly the pursuit of rationality wouldn’t go down this path[5].
I’m sorry you’re considering leaving the site or restraining what content you post. I wish it were otherwise. Even as a relatively new writer I like your contributions, and think it likely good for the site for you to contribute more over the coming years.
As perhaps a last note for now, I’ll point to the past events listed at the end of this comment as hopefully helpful for you to have a full-picture of how at least I think about anonymity on the site.
Congratulations[1]. You have managed to describe my position substantially more eloquently and accurately than I could do so myself. I find myself scared and slightly in awe.
Correct, even to the point of correctly predicting “much less” but not zero.
This is a very good analogy. One other implication: it also likely results in consequences for future games with said host, not just the current one. The game has changed.
=*=*=*=
I ended up walking away from LessWrong for the (remaining) duration of Good Hart Week; I am debating as to if I should delete my account and walk away permanently, or if I should “just” operate under the assumption[2] that all information I post on this site can and will be later adversarially used against me[3][4] (which includes, but is not limited to, not posting controversial opinions in general).
I was initially leaning toward the former; I think I will do the latter.
To be clear, because text on the internet can easily be misinterpreted: this is intended to be a strong compliment.
To be clear: as in “for the purposes of bounding risk” not as in “I believe this has a high priority of happening”.
Which is far more restrictive than had I been planning for this from the start.
This is my default assumption on most sites; I was operating under the (erroneous) assumption that a site whose main distinguishing feature was supposedly the pursuit of rationality wouldn’t go down this path[5].
You can easily get strategic-voting-like suboptimal outcomes, for one.
I’m sorry you’re considering leaving the site or restraining what content you post. I wish it were otherwise. Even as a relatively new writer I like your contributions, and think it likely good for the site for you to contribute more over the coming years.
As perhaps a last note for now, I’ll point to the past events listed at the end of this comment as hopefully helpful for you to have a full-picture of how at least I think about anonymity on the site.