5 ms·

Are you honestly claiming that the author believes that Yudkowsky was literally the first person in history to suggest making lights brighter? Also, you should

Are you honestly claiming that the author believes that Yudkowsky was literally the first person in history to suggest making lights brighter? Also, you should read anything Yudkowsky himself has written about Roko’s basilisk. He’s never claimed that it could work, or that it’s dangerous at all. (“Why did he ban it then?” Because he wanted to prevent it from inspiring an infohazard brainstorming session that could produce a real danger, and he apparently hadn’t heard about the Streisand effect.)

Jiro 5y ago
Yudkowsky claimed that the exact basilisk as described by Roko wouldn't work, but he also believes that something like it would.
- thewakalix 5y ago
  Sort of. He believes that if people try to come up with infohazards and then immediately spread them, there’s a nonzero chance that they succeed. It’s unlikely, but still not something to encourage. (This is not the same thing as “being certain that a minor modification of Roko’s basilisk would produce an evil time-travelling AI,” to be clear.)
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    This kind of utter gibberish is exactly why people don't take LessWrong seriously.
    - thewakalix 5y ago
      “Ideas can be harmful” is gibberish?
      - Udo 5y ago
        The amount of self-importance on display is what makes it sound like gibberish. A: "I have the most ground-breaking idea ever!" B: "Okay, let's hear it?" A: "No, it's too dangerous, it may well destroy the world, but trust me it's brilliant and completely novel." It's a religion at that point.
        traverseda 5y ago
        How about bitcoin? It's not so much an idea as a piece of software, but being predicted on wasting energy it's going to do a lot of harm. That's an example of this class of game-theory based ideas. I believe that there are other ideas like that, things that set up spirals that are a lot worse than just "destroy energy to make money". Obviously they're not going to be universally compelling, an idea that's dangerous like that in one context might be perfectly safe in another. It depends on the target audience.
        Udo 5y ago
        > That's an example of this class of game-theory based ideas. That's a good point on its own, but it's not a response. At no time did I or anyone here in this thread assert that "info hazards" do not exist. What is being discussed is whether it's worthwhile to be deferential to a person/community who is making claims of being in possession of an exceptionally catastrophic piece of information that by its nature would preclude public scrutiny on ethical grounds.
        traverseda 5y ago
        I don't think Yudkowsky is making that claim anywhere? >At no time did I or anyone here in this thread assert that "info hazards" do not exist. >What is being discussed is whether it's worthwhile to be deferential to a person who is making claims It's honestly really not that clear what you're trying to discuss, certainly you haven't been making a clear statement like that. I don't think anyone is making claims of being in possession of such an infohazard for one thing, and if there were I don't think anyone would be saying you should be deferential towards someone who claimed to have one, sight unseen. I think you're arguing with a bit of a straw man? Like no one is being all "let's be deferential towards Yudkowsky because he has the idea equivalent of a nuke". He doesn't, to the best of my knowledge, claim to have the idea equivalent of a nuke. I assumed you were claiming that info-hazards don't exist because otherwise what exactly are you claiming? Anyway, if that was your point, granted. Let's not be differential towards people who claim to have info-hazards, unless they can go into a room and make someone laugh themselves to death or something. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBWr1KtnRcI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBWr1KtnRcI
      - user-the-name 5y ago
        Now you've just generalised the statement until it becomes a truism. So you are now essentially claiming the statement is garbage because it is devoid of useful meaning.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
pelario 5y ago
From the article: >Elevator pitch: Bring enough light to simulate daylight into your home and office. >This idea has been shared in Less Wrong circles for a couple years. Yudkowsky wrote Inadequate Equilibria in 2017 where he and his wife invented the idea
- thewakalix 5y ago
  Yes, I read the same article. Do you believe, based on a single word, that the author believes that literally zero people in the entire course of human history have ever suggested “brighter lights” until Yudkowsky came along?
  - drcongo 5y ago
    I don't know who any of these people are, but that is exactly what the article says, so why should we not believe that that's what the author believes?
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      Because it’s far more likely that the author chose slightly wrong words that ended up conflating a specific invention with being the first human “to invent the idea” that “hey, brighter lights would be closer to obviously brighter daylight” only 5 years ago. I’d wager that the author realizes that more than half of adults today had that insight sometime prior to 2017.
      - jl6 5y ago
        Some people read websites the way they would read a math proof. One tiny error and the whole thing comes down. A more charitable reading is often perfectly appropriate.
        necovek 5y ago
        If you are reading it as a math proof, I am only disputing the claim when the idea was invented. As I don't bring up the rest of the article's points, I am neither supporting nor refuting them with that particular comment. Math (or actually, logic) is a bit more resilient than you make it out to be.

Jiro 5y ago

Yudkowsky claimed that the exact basilisk as described by Roko wouldn't work, but he also believes that something like it would.

thewakalix 5y ago
Sort of. He believes that if people try to come up with infohazards and then immediately spread them, there’s a nonzero chance that they succeed. It’s unlikely, but still not something to encourage. (This is not the same thing as “being certain that a minor modification of Roko’s basilisk would produce an evil time-travelling AI,” to be clear.)
- user-the-name 5y ago
  This kind of utter gibberish is exactly why people don't take LessWrong seriously.
  - thewakalix 5y ago
    “Ideas can be harmful” is gibberish?
    - Udo 5y ago
      The amount of self-importance on display is what makes it sound like gibberish. A: "I have the most ground-breaking idea ever!" B: "Okay, let's hear it?" A: "No, it's too dangerous, it may well destroy the world, but trust me it's brilliant and completely novel." It's a religion at that point.
      - traverseda 5y ago
        How about bitcoin? It's not so much an idea as a piece of software, but being predicted on wasting energy it's going to do a lot of harm. That's an example of this class of game-theory based ideas. I believe that there are other ideas like that, things that set up spirals that are a lot worse than just "destroy energy to make money". Obviously they're not going to be universally compelling, an idea that's dangerous like that in one context might be perfectly safe in another. It depends on the target audience.
        Udo 5y ago
        > That's an example of this class of game-theory based ideas. That's a good point on its own, but it's not a response. At no time did I or anyone here in this thread assert that "info hazards" do not exist. What is being discussed is whether it's worthwhile to be deferential to a person/community who is making claims of being in possession of an exceptionally catastrophic piece of information that by its nature would preclude public scrutiny on ethical grounds.
        traverseda 5y ago
        I don't think Yudkowsky is making that claim anywhere? >At no time did I or anyone here in this thread assert that "info hazards" do not exist. >What is being discussed is whether it's worthwhile to be deferential to a person who is making claims It's honestly really not that clear what you're trying to discuss, certainly you haven't been making a clear statement like that. I don't think anyone is making claims of being in possession of such an infohazard for one thing, and if there were I don't think anyone would be saying you should be deferential towards someone who claimed to have one, sight unseen. I think you're arguing with a bit of a straw man? Like no one is being all "let's be deferential towards Yudkowsky because he has the idea equivalent of a nuke". He doesn't, to the best of my knowledge, claim to have the idea equivalent of a nuke. I assumed you were claiming that info-hazards don't exist because otherwise what exactly are you claiming? Anyway, if that was your point, granted. Let's not be differential towards people who claim to have info-hazards, unless they can go into a room and make someone laugh themselves to death or something. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBWr1KtnRcI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBWr1KtnRcI
    - user-the-name 5y ago
      Now you've just generalised the statement until it becomes a truism. So you are now essentially claiming the statement is garbage because it is devoid of useful meaning.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

pelario 5y ago

From the article: >Elevator pitch: Bring enough light to simulate daylight into your home and office. >This idea has been shared in Less Wrong circles for a couple years. Yudkowsky wrote Inadequate Equilibria in 2017 where he and his wife invented the idea

thewakalix 5y ago
Yes, I read the same article. Do you believe, based on a single word, that the author believes that literally zero people in the entire course of human history have ever suggested “brighter lights” until Yudkowsky came along?
- drcongo 5y ago
  I don't know who any of these people are, but that is exactly what the article says, so why should we not believe that that's what the author believes?
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Because it’s far more likely that the author chose slightly wrong words that ended up conflating a specific invention with being the first human “to invent the idea” that “hey, brighter lights would be closer to obviously brighter daylight” only 5 years ago. I’d wager that the author realizes that more than half of adults today had that insight sometime prior to 2017.
    - jl6 5y ago
      Some people read websites the way they would read a math proof. One tiny error and the whole thing comes down. A more charitable reading is often perfectly appropriate.
      - necovek 5y ago
        If you are reading it as a math proof, I am only disputing the claim when the idea was invented. As I don't bring up the rest of the article's points, I am neither supporting nor refuting them with that particular comment. Math (or actually, logic) is a bit more resilient than you make it out to be.