Talk:LessWrong
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>
Contents |
[edit] Doing something for people distressed by the basilisk
- moved to the shiny new Talk:Roko's basilisk
[edit] Thinking and writing
I spend many hours a day thinking. LessWrong/that jerk who owns it seems to think that certain thoughts will destroy our universe, or our civilization, or some such. I like to sit and think. I don't think I can harm the world by thinking. I also think that the "LessWrong" leader is probably more wrong than he ever realizes. ħuman
06:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- I completely agree. tuttlemsm 06:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't believe even the strongest of advocates for the dangers of AI would suggest that you could harm the world by thinking, and can't think as I've ever seen them say such a thing.--
talk
13:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- The Roko thing is triggered by thinking about it in "sufficient detail", according to Yudkowsky on the day 1 and ever since. Someone also stated the obvious that the future AI may torture literally everyone a bazillion times over if you care that this won't happen. Dmytry (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
[edit] How they disagree with Stephen Jay Gould....
| He[Gould] claimed that there were outright historic geniuses laboring in the fields. I regard this as completely ludicrous due both to the effects of poverty & oppression on means & tails and due to the pretty effective meritocratic mechanisms in even a backwater like India. |
Dmytry (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- You can't quote one comment from within a discussion and claims it represents the whole site - when it's not even representative of general sentiment in that discussion.--
talk
22:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's not like I added it to the article. (edit: I didn't even claim they all disliked Gould) By the way where did the mention of this go? Dmytry (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Even reading that in context, the discussion doesn't have much to do with Gould at all. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- It started when in a rationality quotes thread someone quoted Gould Dmytry (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- But do you see how unfair it is, to say that "they disagree with Stephen Jay Gould," when you're only quoting one person from a tangential discussion on the matter in the comments section?
- You really seem to dislike LW, and I've found that, because of things like this, I have to be careful and check any contributions you make and the sources of anything you quote.--
talk
21:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's at +2 currently, it is by one of MIRI employees, and it includes outright racism such as "Even if the mean mathematical ability in Indians were innately low (I'm quite skeptical there)" - "It absolutely is. Don't confuse the fact that there are quite a few brilliant Indians in absolute numbers with a statement about the mean - with a population of ~1.3 billion people, that's just proving the point." . Within the rest of the discussion, the highest voted posts argue that in rural India, a peasant with the innate talent of Einstein would end up getting recognition, and therefore, there no peasants with such innate talents. Which serves as the base for concluding just how stupid Indians are. Dmytry (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Also, I didn't want to imply that everyone disagrees with Gould. I wanted to point out how those who disagree do so. I am not sure how I should have worded that. I do not think that everyone on LW is racist, of course. There's a very vocal racist minority, though, and it is quite normal there that the national IQ differences well within the range of the Flynn effect are assumed to indicate lower innate cognitive abilities. Dmytry (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- ...Wow, they really are nuts. - LucidFox (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- By the way, they are largely funded by Peter Thiel, "An avowed libertarian, he founded The Stanford Review in 1987 along with Norman Book. The Stanford Review became famous for challenging campus mores including political correctness and laws against hate speech." . Also known for his "20-under-20" thing where he'd ruin young actually brilliant people's careers by helping them try to run (for example) biomedical research as if it was facebook. Dmytry (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- ...Wow, they really are nuts. - LucidFox (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Also, I didn't want to imply that everyone disagrees with Gould. I wanted to point out how those who disagree do so. I am not sure how I should have worded that. I do not think that everyone on LW is racist, of course. There's a very vocal racist minority, though, and it is quite normal there that the national IQ differences well within the range of the Flynn effect are assumed to indicate lower innate cognitive abilities. Dmytry (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's at +2 currently, it is by one of MIRI employees, and it includes outright racism such as "Even if the mean mathematical ability in Indians were innately low (I'm quite skeptical there)" - "It absolutely is. Don't confuse the fact that there are quite a few brilliant Indians in absolute numbers with a statement about the mean - with a population of ~1.3 billion people, that's just proving the point." . Within the rest of the discussion, the highest voted posts argue that in rural India, a peasant with the innate talent of Einstein would end up getting recognition, and therefore, there no peasants with such innate talents. Which serves as the base for concluding just how stupid Indians are. Dmytry (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- It started when in a rationality quotes thread someone quoted Gould Dmytry (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Even reading that in context, the discussion doesn't have much to do with Gould at all. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's not like I added it to the article. (edit: I didn't even claim they all disliked Gould) By the way where did the mention of this go? Dmytry (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- I suppose you'd have to know more about English literature than having read summaries of Harry Potter on Wikipedia to recognize this, but it's not like this is Gould's original idea. It's basically the main idea of Gray's Elegy: "Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest," and all. It's pretty much a commonplace. LessWrong: an illustration of the grave dangers of a lack of a humanities education. 71.175.253.87 (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
[edit] SomethingAwful thread
[1] - includes potentially useful criticisms of LW and of this very article (e.g. [2]) - David Gerard (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Crossing the cult event horizon
I've finally given up looking for anything redeeming in LessWrong after a knowledgeable critic - who I'm refraining from naming here - posted, saying he couldn't deal with ongoing harassment across the net from LW members, as it's been affecting his health - I've seen them stalking his posts and callng him a liar wherever they find him, and I would shrug this off but I certainly wouldn't expect anyone else to - and asking how it could stop. Yudkowsky responded with something that reminded me of Scientology steps A-E. (Which are similarly something Scientology does when its harassment gets a victim to begging stage.) Am I overreacting, or is this actually creepy and borderline insane?
- Post: http://lesswrong.com/lw/lb3/breaking_the_vicious_cycle/img
- Response: http://lesswrong.com/lw/lb3/breaking_the_vicious_cycle/bnrrimg
(This is why a pile of reference links on Roko's basilisk just went blank.) - David Gerard (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- *jaw drops* I think that at least a part of the response belongs as a quote in the article on Yudkowsky.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Honestly, this feels like it crosses a line to racketeering, since by making demands, Yudkowsky crossed a line to being an active proponent of the harassment. I've always been mildly amused at LW, but "Admit I'm the best or harassment continues" is not a position that should be tolerated in a sane country. Ikanreed (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I had never heard of LW until reading the article on RW a few years back, so I went in gave it a look. For reasons that are irrelevant to this discussion, I came to dislike the LW community with some rapidity. This example of cultish behavior is not surprising in the slightest. --Inquisitor (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I mean, it's kinda what happens any time a bunch of atheists get together and accidentally start a religion. The community's central ideas become immutable truths. Honestly, I appreciate the existence of LessWrong, because it gives our dark, corporate-controlled cyberpunk future that inevitable cult of computer worshipers that the genre demands. The fact that they aren't a motorcycle gang too is a bit depressing, though. Ikanreed (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I had never heard of LW until reading the article on RW a few years back, so I went in gave it a look. For reasons that are irrelevant to this discussion, I came to dislike the LW community with some rapidity. This example of cultish behavior is not surprising in the slightest. --Inquisitor (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Honestly, this feels like it crosses a line to racketeering, since by making demands, Yudkowsky crossed a line to being an active proponent of the harassment. I've always been mildly amused at LW, but "Admit I'm the best or harassment continues" is not a position that should be tolerated in a sane country. Ikanreed (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I've always gotten the creepy cult vibe from LW, especially given the way that site regulars seem to have a compelling need to bring up Yudkowsky and the site in pretty much any context. "Greetings, sir, have you heard the Gospel of Yudkowsky?" Any bets on when one of them will start a compound and call for other LWies to move there? Unfortunately they'll probably wind up tarring the whole rationalist/skeptic subculture by association if they get into the public eye, but whatcha gonna do. In a nice bit of irony, the champions of rationalism are displaying many of the same irrational behaviors they focus so much on criticizing: leader worship, shunning outsiders, believing that things will happen if they wish really hard. --Ymir (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah it definitely felt "off" to me as well. But I freely admit this is due in part to my own biases. To me, a community of individuals that is earnestly seeking to be "less wrong" would sound like: "Hey! I discovered this cool thing today! Anybody else know about this? Let's talk about it!". Instead LW read a lot like "Gather round children and come bathe in the master's newest revelation. Oh, you disagree? How charming. Go and drink deeply of the master's Sequences. Once you have understood and accepted them in fullness, you too will be welcomed into the body." --Inquisitor (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I suspect this article needs another rewrite. I am probably cursed with the greatest quantity of detailed information, but might come across as excessively pissed off. Anyone else feeling trepidatious? - David Gerard (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- The recent name-change to MIRI also gives off a "We're not nutbars, honestly!" vibe. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- That was actually a deal with Ray Kurzweil - people kept assuming they were part of his organisation and there was a lot of confusion, so they sold the name, singularity.org and the Singularity Summit to him (quite friendly, they all know each other and he's on their advisory board) - David Gerard (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)