Team Lead for LessWrong
Speaking the truth is not something to be traded away, however costly it may be.
Stated without clarification, this is not something I'd say categorically and I suspect neither would you. As the classic example goes, you would probably lie to the Space Gestapo to prevent them from killing your mother.
Curated. I like the central thesis of this post, but a further point I like about it is it takes the conversation beyond a simple binary of "are we doomed or not?", and "how doomed are we?" to a more interesting discussion of possible outcomes, their likelihoods, and the gears behind them. And I think that's epistemically healthy. I think it puts things into a mode of "make predictions for reasons" over "argue for a simplified position". Plus, this kind of attention to values and their origins is also one thing I think that hasn't gotten as much airtime on LessWrong and is important, both in remembering what we're fighting for (in very broad terms) and how we need to fight (i.e. what's ok to build).
This is so neat! I (32M) initially didn't look at this post (my brain had auto-completed it to "I made an epub" or something), but I'm familiar with this format and find the whole thing very cute. (I don't know how many people I expect to watch these, but I'm amused the exist. Kudos.)
I only watched one but would go for Minecraft or whatever the game with the cars is, less sudden and jerky movement.
Curated. I've got to hand it to this post for raw unadulterated expression of pure Ravenclaw curiosity at how the world (and we ourselves) work. It is morbid and it's perhaps fortunate the images are broken, but I'm just enjoying how much the author is reveling in the knowledge and experience here.
I like the generalized lesson here of GO LOOK AT THE WORLD, it's right there.
I don't know that I have the stomach to do this myself, but glad people are!
This point does not work literally as stated, and is vastly too underspecified to be useful not taken as 100%.
[I appreciate your preamble. Thank you for the feedback and suggestion! Appreciated.]
We've actually just recently built "rate limits" for accounts as actually something in-between no action and banning. I have a draft post about our moderation philosoph and approach I want to get out in the next few days.
In this case I felt that it was better to skip the intermediary steps though, just going on experience with different types of users and likely outcomes.
I am a bit sad too. You might reassured to know that we are generally very reluctant to remove content once posted and practically never do so excepting spam, even if we didn't think it was great content.
Hi Bernd,
I'm very sorry but while I am sympathetic to your viewpoint and arguments, I feel your manner of communication (axe-grindy extremely inappropriately long comments on posts not quite relevant posts, this here comment even lapsing in German without explanation) is not a good fit for LessWrong. After chatting with Raemon, we feel it better if you weren't on LessWrong and I am regrettably disabling your ability to post and comment. Our experience with other users who had similar commenting patterns is that improvements are unlikely, so I do feel it's best not to drag things out and go for the full disabling. (Sorry about doing this in public – I like to be transparent about mod actions.
If you'd like to discuss, please use team@lesswrong.com
Curated. The ELK paper/problem/challenge last year was a significant piece of work for our alignment community and my guess is hundreds of hours and maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars went into incentivizing solutions. Though prizes were awarded, I'm not aware that any particular proposed solution was deemed incredibly promising (or if it was, it wasn't something new), so I find it interesting to see what Paul and ARC have generated as they do stick on the same problem, roughly.