4 ms·

That fairly hostile "article" is not accurate and the basilisk portion has already been responded to previously by Yudkowsky. See here: https://www.reddit.com/r

• davidgerard 12y ago
  I have repeatedly asked for a list of the inaccuracies, since I substantially wrote, researched and cited the article http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk . Yudkowsky called me a LYING LIAR WHO LIES LIES LIES but the only claim of an actual lie he could come up with was where it said this was an incentive to donate to MIRI. Given that the original Basilisk post and the preceding post were literally about how to come up with lots of money to donate to MIRI (then SIAI), I'm not really willing to accept that as a lie. For the claim of inaccuracies: that article is cited to the phrase level for good reason. If you're claiming inaccuracies, you're going to need actual details of why the cites are wrong.
  • deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
• Eliezer 12y ago
  (FYI: If you follow qrendel's above link to /r/XKCD you'll see a detailed list of the false claims in the RationalWiki article as they existed at that time. After repeatedly being provided such lists, David Gerard claims every time that no list of false claims have ever been provided him. Checking the XKCD link will show you that this is outright and verifiably false.)
  • davidgerard 12y ago
    Let me note again the lack of actual specifics. The claims are literally not made, let alone substantiated.
    • Eliezer 12y ago
      I reply that you are blatantly lying about an easily checkable matter, and I request the interested observer to follow the link and check. (Wow. Am I missing something about status games that make the above open lie a good move for David Gerard? He's done it repeatedly, too. I'm confused, how is this a good thing from his perspective? Am I playing into his hands somehow by calling him on it each time?)
      • qrendel 12y ago
        Any publicity is good publicity?