In this case, the comment censored was not posted by you. Therefore you’re not the author.
FYI the actual author didn’t even know it was censored.
waitingforgodel
Karma: −103
How To Lose 100 Karma In 6 Hours—What Just Happened
Are you aware of the damage your censoring is doing?
That blocking these things you think are bad (and most people do not) is causing tangible PR problems, chilling effects, SIAI/LW appearing psycho, and repeated discussion of a ancient thread?
If you weren’t you, but were instead witnessing a friend do something so utterly stupid, wouldn’t you tell them to stop?
I don’t think my addition gives EY the high ground.
What are the points you wanted to bring up with him?
Huh? Try:
P(law will pass | (sane existential risk estimators would think it’s retarded) && (lots of right wingers heard great reasons) && (a lobby or two was convinced it was in their interest))
But (hopefully!) nothing like that could be caused with a single email. Baby steps.
Are you joking? Do you have any idea what a retarded law can do to existential risks?
A (slightly more) sane response would be to direct your altruistic punishment towards the SIAI specifically.
I’m all ears.
If you can think of something equally bad that targets SIAI specifically, (or anyone reading this can), email it to badforsiai.wfg@xoxy.net
If you feel more comfortable labeling it ‘terrorism’… well… it’s your thinking to bias.
someone has to stand up against your abuse
Agree except for the ‘terrorism’ and ‘allegedly’ part.
I just emailed a right-wing blogger some stuff that probably isn’t good for the future. Not sure what the increase was, hopefully around 0.0001%.
I’ll write it up in more detail and post a top-level discussion thread after work.
-wfg
Then I guess I’ll be asked to leave the lesswrong site.
The 0.0001% bit was a reference to my earlier precommitment
yep, this one is showing as deleted
Lol. right, that’d do it
Great post. It confuses me why this isn’t at 10+ karma
I notice that your list is future facing.
Lies are usually about the past.
It’s very easy to not lie when talking about the future. It is much easier to “just this once” lie about the past. You can do both, for instance, by explaining that you believe a project will succeed, even while withholding information that would convince a donor otherwise.
An example of this would be errors or misconduct in completing past projects.
Lack of relevant qualifications for people SIAI plans to employ on a project.
Or administrative errors and misconduct.
Or public relations / donor outreach misconduct.
To put the question another, less abstract way, have you ever lied to a SIAI donor? Do you know of anyone affiliated with SIAI who has lied a donor?
Hypothetically, If I said I had evidence in the affirmative to the second question, how surprising would that be to you? How much money would you bet that such evidence doesn’t exist?
why shouldn’t they shut up?
Because this is LessWrong—you can give a sane response and not only does it clear the air, people understand and appreciate it.
Cable news debating isn’t needed here.
Sure we might still wonder if they’re being perfectly honest, but saying something more sane on the topic than silence seems like a net-positive from their perspective.
no sensible person who had the answer would
I respectfully disagree, and have my hopes set on Carl (or some other level-headed person in a position to know) giving a satisfying answer.
This is LessWrong after all—we can follow complicated arguments, and at least hearing how SIAI is actually thinking about such things would (probably) reduce my paranoia.
Make that “they do it for the greater good”
Sorry about mistakingly implying s/he was affiliated. I’ll be more diligent with my google stalking in the future.
edit: In my defense, SIAI affiliation has been very common when looking up very “pro” people from this thread
but he won me back by answering anyway <3
YES IT IS. In case anyone missed it. It isn’t Roko’s post we’re talking about right now