No. This is still oversimplifying the issue, which I specifically disclaimed. Ben Pace gives a sense of it here:
...The philosophical disagreement is related-to but not itself the thing I believe Ray is saying is bad. The claim I understand Ray to be making is that he believes you gave a false account of the site-wide norms about what users are obligated to do, and that this is reflective of you otherwise implicitly enforcing such a norm many times that you comment on posts. Enforcing norms on behalf of a space that you don't have buy-in for and that the space
Moderation action on Said
(See also: Ruby's moderator warning for Duncan)
I’ve been thinking for a week, and trying to sanity-check whether there are actual good examples of Said doing-the-thing-I’ve-complained-about, rather than “I formed a stereotype of Said and pattern match to it too quickly”, and such.
I think Said is a pretty confusing case though. I’m going to lay out my current thinking here, in a number of comments, and I expect at least a few more days of discussion as the LessWrong community digests this. I’ve pinned this post to the top of t...
Warning to Duncan
(See also: Raemon's moderator action on Said)
Since we were pretty much on the same page, Raemon delegated writing this warning to Duncan to me, and signed off on it.
Generally, I am quite sad if, when someone points/objects to bad behavior, they end up facing moderator action themselves. It doesn’t set a great incentive. At the same time, some of Duncan’s recent behavior also feels quite bad to me, and to not respond to it would also create a bad incentive – particularly if the undesirable behavior results in something a person likes.
Here’s...
tl;dr – @Duncan_Sabien and @Said Achmiz each can write up to two more comments on this post discussing what they think of this verdict, but are otherwise on a temporary ban from the site until they have negotiated with the mod team and settled on either:
I'm deeply uncertain about how often it's worth litigating the implied meta-level concerns; I'm not at all uncertain that this way of expressing them was inappropriate. I don't want see sniping like this on LessWrong, and especially not in comment threads like this.
Consider this a warning to knock it off.
Mod note: I just gave Duncan and Said a commenting rate-limit of 1-per-day, mostly as a "slow down and give mods time to actually think" measure.
(This is not my ideal technological solution to the situation, but it was the easiest one to implement quickly, apologies)
I want to step in here as a moderator. We're getting a substantial wave of new people joining the site who aren't caught up on all the basic arguments for why AI is likely to be dangerous.
I do want people with novel critiques of AI to be able to present them. But LessWrong is a site focused on progressing the cutting edge of thinking, and that means we can't rehash every debate endlessly. This comment makes a lot of arguments that have been dealt with extensively on this forum, in the AI box experiment, Cold Takes, That Alien Message, So It Looks Lik...
This post, and many of @AnthonyRepetto's subsequent replies to comments on it, seem to be attacking a position that the named individuals don't hold, while stridently throwing out a bunch of weird accusations and deeply underspecified claims. "Bayes is persistently wrong" - about what, exactly?
Content like this should include specific, uncontroversial examples of all the claimed intellectual bankruptcy, and not include a bunch of random (and wrong) snipes.
I'm rate-limiting your ability to comment to once per day. You may consider this a warning...
Quick very off the cuff mod note: I haven't actually looked into the details of this thread and don't have time today, but skimming it it looks like it's maybe spiralling into a Demon Thread and it might be good for people to slow down and think more about what their goals are.
(If everyone involved is actually just having fun hashing an idea out, sorry for my barging in)
I'm the moderator who approved this first post. Like others, I don't think as stated this is plan is being conducted in a good way. However, I thought it might be good for Percy to get feedback and pushback. There's been less explicit feedback, but the -30 karma is in indication that people in general do not think this is a great plan.
Percy, you've gone and made another post continuing with your plan and disregarding the response from this one (and being more concrete without having done the work you say in this post needs doing). I've drafted that post as... (read more)