From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, (new)(back)

Why does hardly anyone link to LW?[edit]

Consider sites such as this and this and this and this. Why is it that nobody links to LW, even though they on a superficial level are sites with common interests? Is it because nobody knows about them, or is it because they don't want to be associated with it? I asked Massimo Pigliucci about it, and he said that people know about it, but don't want to be associated with it (himself included).--Baloney Detection (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, by this point, we are all aware that LW is like an incestuous Appalachian clan, isolated from the rest of the world. There's no need to keep ragging on about it. At this point, you're just picking maggots out of a rotting corpse. It's clearly a rotting corpse, there's no need to show everybody the maggots.--"Shut up, Brx." 19:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, of course Massimo Pigliucci doesn't want to be associated with LW. He's on the other end of the spectrum.--"Shut up, Brx." 19:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree with Pigliucci's critiques of Dawkins et al (well, except for the fact that Sam Harris is wrong about morality, but not quite the way that Pigliucci thinks). But he rejects LW due to singularitarianism and Yud's philosophy of science ideas (the science vs Bayes stuff). That you put Yud on par with Dawkins et al is a major insult to the latter.--Baloney Detection (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I meant that as a highlight of his own, non-determinist views. I don't consider Yudlowsky to be on par with Dawkins. I don't like Dawkins, but he doesn't deserve comparison with Yudlowsky. Sorry about that.--"Shut up, Brx." 19:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Personally I'm quite the Dawkins fanboy, but I can understand why some people dislike him. The point is that Dawkins it not a crank who spouts pseudoscience and runs a doomsday cult, like Yudkowsky is. Quite the opposite, as Dawkins is no more friendly of pseudoscience than of religion.--Baloney Detection (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Roko prominent as in...?[edit]

In the basilisk section, it is said that Roko was a top contributor at the time. Was he as prominent a contributor as Yvain and Luke Muehlhauser are today, arguably the two most prominent LWians except for the big Yud himself? I suspect LM will eventually fall out with them. Having faced many crackpot accusations against LW (seems to be more or less the universal view of them outside their echo chamber), he has tried to put Yudkowsky's ideas (or at least "the sequences") on a more mainstream scientific footing, something not at all liked by Yudkowsky (despite LM reassuring the "awesomeness" of Yudkowsky's writings). Once it is clear to him that Yudkowsky is clueless about what he is supposedly a researcher in and that Yudkowsky isn't at all interested in mainstream scientific AI research, the cards should fall quickly. But I could be wrong here, as having his nose blown in the "debate" with Wang apparently didn't do a dent to his beliefs.--Baloney Detection (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Roko was indeed a top contributor, and as prominent - David Gerard (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hacker News[edit]

[1] "LW literally derived religion and then took that seriously enough to cover it up. That's fantastic." - David Gerard (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Haha! That's a fantastic quote!--ADtalkModerator 13:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Romance, LW style.[edit],26558,26558#msg-26558

" So I broke up with Alice over a long conversation that included an hour-long primer on evolutionary psychology in which I explained how natural selection had built me to be attracted to certain features that she lacked. "... This should be quoted somewhere in the article, I may get on that later. Dmytry (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
"So why are they like this?" and how it selects for people who aren't good with people - David Gerard (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
In this dude's defense, two sentences later is the line "Now I realize that there's hardly a more damaging way to break up with someone. She asked that I kindly never speak to her again, and I can't blame her." Still hilariously maladaptive overall though. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 14:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The problem here is just good ol "being a self absorbed dick" problem IMO. There's probably a lot of people who self diagnose with Aspergers who are simply self absorbed dicks and unable to hide it, aka narcissist minus the shiny. Damaging, you may read into this a concern for that person but the damage listed is all to him. (Normal person that's bad at social interaction probably would also be interacting more carefully with omg future destroyers of the world i.e. Pei Wang) Dmytry (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Utilons... I read some econ at university, and through talks of maximizing utility abounded, nobody I ever encountered took it as literally as these guys seem to do, as some sort of fixed unit. It was always a simplified model used to depict a complicated world.--Baloney Detection (talk) 12:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Should "the sequences" get their own heading?[edit]

Given that they are such a huge part of the LW reading list, I think the question is worth considering. Given that they contain very different kinds of content, I don't think they as a whole fit into either the good, bad or ugly category.--Baloney Detection (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The entire page needs to be redone, frankly, since it's getting megasectionitis - the phenomenon where editors just keep tacking on additional sentences and clauses onto the whole, until eventually the overburdened and wide-spanning sections look like a one-branch Christmas tree with forty ornaments.--ADtalkModerator 10:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Sounds great, get to it! - David Gerard (talk) 10:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I concur with DG. Just whatever you do, keep Roko's basilisk!--Baloney Detection (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Okeydokey. I will do this soon.--ADtalkModerator 11:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I have been thinking about this, and here is a question: where to put discussion of the Singularity Institute? Here, Yud's page, or on its own page?--ADtalkModerator 07:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC) — Unsigned, by: Pibot / talk / contribs 06:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)