...before exposing the public to something that you know that a lot of people believe to be dangerous.
The pieces of the puzzle that Manfred put together can all be found on lesswrong. What do you suggest, that research into game and decision theory be banned?
You’re being facetious. No one is seriously disputing where the boundary between basilisk and non-basilisk lies, only what to do with the things on the basilisk side of the line.
No one is seriously disputing where the boundary between basilisk and non-basilisk lies...
This assumes that everyone knows where the boundary lies. The original post by Manfred either crossed the boundary or it didn’t. In the case that it didn’t, it only serves as a warning sign of where not to go. In the case that it did, how is your knowledge of the boundary not a case of hindsight bias?
The pieces of the puzzle that Manfred put together can all be found on lesswrong. What do you suggest, that research into game and decision theory be banned?
You’re being facetious. No one is seriously disputing where the boundary between basilisk and non-basilisk lies, only what to do with the things on the basilisk side of the line.
This assumes that everyone knows where the boundary lies. The original post by Manfred either crossed the boundary or it didn’t. In the case that it didn’t, it only serves as a warning sign of where not to go. In the case that it did, how is your knowledge of the boundary not a case of hindsight bias?
(The voters seem to think I’m being stupid, but that doesn’t actually tell me what the right answer is...)
First, I’m assuming that, in general, people who have not seen the basilisk are not going to mention it accidentally.
Second, I’m assuming that, due to the nature of the basilisk, those who have seen it know what is and is not basilisk-information.
Which of these two assumptions do you disagree with? (please check all that apply)