It's indeed the case that I haven't been attracted back to LW by the moderation options that I hoped might accomplish that. Even dealing with Twitter feels better than dealing with LW comments, where people are putting more effort into more complicated misinterpretations and getting more visibly upvoted in a way that feels worse. The last time I wanted to post something that felt like it belonged on LW, I would have only done that if it'd had Twitter's options for turning off commenting entirely.

So yes, I suppose that people could go ahead and make this decision without me. I haven't been using my moderation powers to delete the elaborate-misinterpretation comments because it does not feel like the system is set up to make that seem like a sympathetic decision to the audience, and does waste the effort of the people who perhaps imagine themselves to be dutiful commentators.

There is an extremely short period where aliens as stupid as us would benefit at all from this warning. In humanity's case, there's only a couple of centuries between when we can send and detect radio signals, and when we either destroy ourselves or perhaps get a little wiser. Aliens cannot be remotely common or the galaxies would be full and we would find ourselves at an earlier period when those galaxies were not yet full. The chance that any such signal helps any alien close enough to decode them is nearly 0.

It's not really a fair question because we all have different things to do with our lives than launch snack lines or restaurant carts, but still: If people have discovered such an amazing delicious novel taste, both new and better than ice cream for 1/3 of those who try it, where are the people betting that it would be an amazing commercial success if only somebody produced more of it and advertised it more broadly?

And tbh, I wish I'd been there to try the food myself, because my actual first reaction here is, "Well, this sure is not a popular treat in supermarkets, so my guess is that some of my legion of admiring followers are so dead set on proving me wrong that they proclaimed the superior taste to them of something that sure has not been a wider commercial success, and/or didn't like ice cream much in the first place."

I have the most disobedient cultists on the planet.

What about this is supposed to be an infohazard rather than just private info? It doesn't seem like either a cognitohazard, negatively-valued information (movie spoilers), or a socioinfohazard / exfohazard (each individual prefers to know themselves but prefers society not to know).

See Simon Lerner above on how dead the horse appears to be.

So far as I can tell, there are still a number of EAs out there who did not get the idea of "the stuff you do with gradient descent does not pin down the thing you want to teach the AI, because it's a large space and your dataset underspecifies that internal motivation" and who go, "Aha, but you have not considered that by TRAINING the AI we are providing a REASON for the AI to have the internal motivations I want! And have you also considered that gradient descent doesn't locate a RANDOM element of the space?"

I don't expect all that much that the primary proponents of this talk can be rescued, but maybe the people they propagandize can be rescued.

Then I now agree that you've identified a conflict of fact with what I said.

Thank you for taking the time to correct me and document your correction.  I hope I remember this and can avoid repeating this mistake in the future.