“Eliezer Yudkowsky Facts” as a featured article. Wow, that’s certainly one way to react to this kind of criticism.
(I approve.)
Roxolan
Karma: 419
Meetup : Brussels—August (topic TBD)
Meetup : Brussels—July meetup
Now imagine someone gives you a spade.
I’d probably call it unethical and try to get it banned.
“Red flag” isn’t exactly what you want but has served me well enough in similar conversations.
Scott Aaronson has posted a transcript of his “conversation” with Eugene Goostman.
Does the internet count as “the general population”? If so: identifying and shaming logical fallacies. Sure, people do it imperfectly, and a lot more readily for the opposing side than for themselves, arguments are soldiers etc. But it’s still harder to get away with them, for an overall positive result on truth-seeking.
Meetup : Brussels—We meet every month
Meetup : Brussels—Neuroatypicality
This is a clever idea. I’m stealing it.
Please include the cityin the meetup title, so that it’s easily identifiable on the sidebar.
Fair point. Apologies to anyone else wearing the no-hug tag.
We wanted to encourage hugging by letting people put a “accepting hugs as a form of greeting” sticker on their extended name tags. To our surprise it was adopted by a huge majority and had an immense effect on social interactions by creating an atmosphere of familiarity.
Only person wearing a no-hug tag unironically here: those do not work. I did less socializing than most, but still had to interrupt a few hugs (in one case by someone wearing an ironic no-hug tag) to my discomfort and their guilt. But a pro-hug culture seems so good for the community that I should probably hack myself/spend a spoon to let people hug me rather than impose costly social rules on everyone else.
In Ancient Greece, while wandering on the road, every day one either encounters a beggar or a god.
If it’s an iterated game, then the decision to pay is a lot less unintuitive.
Meetup : Brussels—all fun and games
Meetup : Brussels—Calibration and other games
Karma is currently very visible to the writers. If you give little positive and negative points to human beings, they will interpret it as reward/punishment, no matter what the intent was. As a meetup organiser, I know I do feel more motivated when my meetup organisation posts get positive karma.
(Reposted from the LW facebook group)
The next LW Brussels meetup will be about morality, and I want to have a bunch of moral dilemmas prepared as conversation-starters. And I mean moral dilemmas that you can’t solve with one easy utilitarian calculation. Some in the local community have had little exposure to LW articles, so I’ll definitely mention standard trolley problems and “torture vs dust specks”, but I’m curious if you have more original ones.
It’s fine if some of them use words that should really be tabooed. The discussion will double as a taboo exercise.
A lot of what I came up with revolves around the boundaries of sentience. I.e. on a scale that goes from self-replicating amino acid to transhumans (and includes animals, babies, the heavily mentally handicapped...), where do you place things like “I have a moral responsibility to uplift those to normal human intelligence once the technology is available” or “it’s fine if I kill/eat/torture those”, and how much of one kind of life you’d be willing to trade off for a superior kind. Do I have a moral responsibility to uplift babies? Uh-
Trading off lives for things whose value is harder to put on the same scale is also interesting. I.e. “will you save this person, or this priceless cultural artifact, or this species near extinction.” (Yes, I’ve seen the SMBC.)
(source)