I’m sorry, but I can’t take infohazard warnings seriously any longer. And yes, Roko’s basilisk is another example of a ridiculous infohazard, because almost all AGI designs are evil anyway. What if someone creates an AI that tortures everyone who doesn’t know about Roko’s basilisk? Then I’m doing a public service.
I think anyone seriously anxious about some potential future AGI torturing them is ridiculously emotionally fragile and should grow up. People get tortured all the time. If you weren’t born in a nice first world country, you’d live your whole life knowing you can get tortured by your government any moment. Two of my friends got tortured. Learning that my government tortures people makes one more likely to go protesting against it and end up tortured, too. Yet I don’t give people any infohazard warnings before talking about it, and I’m not going to. How are you even supposed to solve a problem if you aren’t allowed to discuss some of its aspects.
And if I’m mistaken somewhere, why don’t you explain why, instead of just downvoting me.
I don’t accept your authority on what “looks silly”. And I don’t optimize for how I look; so I’m unmoved by your social pressure. Most of your post is sum up by “Come on, be courageous”.
I strong downvoted because your post has patterns of social pressure, instead of just giving me arguments for why I’m wrong.
The only two argument I can retrieve are:
What if someone creates an AI that tortures everyone who doesn’t know about Roko’s basilisk?
[...]
How are you even supposed to solve a problem if you aren’t allowed to discuss some of its aspects.
I doubt good answers to those questions would change your mind on calling Roko’s basilisk an info-hasard. (would they?)
Well, looking bad leads to attracting less donor money, so it is somewhat important how you look. The argument about why Roko’s basilisk won’t actually be made on purpose is my central point, that’s what you’d have to refute to change my mind. (While I understand how it might get created by accident, spreading awareness to prevent such an accident is more helpful than covering it up—which is now impossible to do anyway, thanks to the Streisand effect the topic comes up all the time.)
I stopped reading right after “Roko’s basilisk”
EtA: I suggest you label info-hazard
Roko’s basilisk was mentioned in the original comment, so I’m not doing any additional harm by mentioning it again in the same thread. I suggest you stop calling everything “infohazard”, because it devalues the term and makes you look silly. Some information is really dangerous, e.g. a bioweapon recipe. Wouldn’t it be good to have a term for dangerous information like this, and have people take it seriously. I think you’ve failed at the second part already. On this site, I’ve seen the term “infohazard” applied to such information as: “we are all going to die”, “there is a covid pandemic” https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zTK8rRLr6RT5yWEmX/what-is-the-appropriate-way-to-communicate-that-we-are, “CDC made some mistakes” https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/nx94BD6vBY23rk6To/thoughts-on-the-scope-of-lesswrong-s-infohazard-policies.
I’m sorry, but I can’t take infohazard warnings seriously any longer. And yes, Roko’s basilisk is another example of a ridiculous infohazard, because almost all AGI designs are evil anyway. What if someone creates an AI that tortures everyone who doesn’t know about Roko’s basilisk? Then I’m doing a public service.
I think anyone seriously anxious about some potential future AGI torturing them is ridiculously emotionally fragile and should grow up. People get tortured all the time. If you weren’t born in a nice first world country, you’d live your whole life knowing you can get tortured by your government any moment. Two of my friends got tortured. Learning that my government tortures people makes one more likely to go protesting against it and end up tortured, too. Yet I don’t give people any infohazard warnings before talking about it, and I’m not going to. How are you even supposed to solve a problem if you aren’t allowed to discuss some of its aspects.
And if I’m mistaken somewhere, why don’t you explain why, instead of just downvoting me.
I don’t accept your authority on what “looks silly”. And I don’t optimize for how I look; so I’m unmoved by your social pressure. Most of your post is sum up by “Come on, be courageous”.
I strong downvoted because your post has patterns of social pressure, instead of just giving me arguments for why I’m wrong.
The only two argument I can retrieve are:
I doubt good answers to those questions would change your mind on calling Roko’s basilisk an info-hasard. (would they?)
Well, looking bad leads to attracting less donor money, so it is somewhat important how you look. The argument about why Roko’s basilisk won’t actually be made on purpose is my central point, that’s what you’d have to refute to change my mind. (While I understand how it might get created by accident, spreading awareness to prevent such an accident is more helpful than covering it up—which is now impossible to do anyway, thanks to the Streisand effect the topic comes up all the time.)