[Aljik]

Honestly, find me one person who believes that the Basilisk is a truth so horrifying that it will destroy your mind.

That is ridiculous. It isn't such a thing and no one believes it to be such a thing. That isn't why it was banned.

To make an analogy, say I believed I created some code, that if ran, would kill the person who was using the computer it ran on. Then I posted that code online.

In some-sense, that would be really dumb of me. Even if you don't believe that my code actually works, you can still be consistent when criticizing me for sharing it.

The second issue that maybe in the future, such a thing will be possible. Maybe computers and humans will be so integrated that you can kill people with malicious software.

Those are the reasons the Basilisk was banned. Do I think banning them was the appropriate action? No. It was Yudkowsky power-tripping cause hes arrogant. Is it as you or others make it out to be? No.

[tangled_zans]

It is very kind of you to explain the situation to me.

Except that I've actually met the infamous Roko, and given your shitty explanation I seem to have a better handle on the issue than you do.

So, think about what that means for a second. Without knowing anything about me, your first reaction to seeing me disagree with you was to assume that I simply do not understand the issue as well as you do, and then to proceeded to lecture me on it in the most simplest and infantile way possible.

That right there? That kind of arrogance which makes you speak over whomever you are talking to in order to shove your view into their face, all the while assuming that you need to explain the most basic things to them? That's why I can't stand LWers. That's why you guys reek of being a cult with no actual interest in rationality.

But since you are so DESPERATE to defend Elizer (when I have not once said that I dislike him - something else that you would have noticed if you bothered to LISTEN), I'll let him speak for himself. Here's an excerpt on him talking about the basilisk.

"To reduce the number of hedons associated with something that should not have hedons associated with its discussion, I will refer to the subject of this discussion as the Babyfcker. The Babyfcker will be taken to be associated with UFAIs; no Friendly AI worthy of the name would do that sort of thing.

Point one: Suppose there were a flaw in your argument that the Babyfcker can't happen. I could not possibly talk publicly about this flaw.

...

Point four: If I could go back in time and ask Roko to quietly retract the Babyfcker post without explanation, I would most certainly do that instead. Unfortunately you can't change history, and I didn't get it right the first time."

You can read the rest of the rant here: https://www.reddit.com/r/LessWrong/comments/17y819/lw_uncens...

I'll humbly let the readership of HN decide for themselves what they think of this sort of philosophy.

Peace.

[Aljik]

>assume that I simply do not understand the issue as well as you do

Not, I assumed you had different understanding. Maybe you do have a more accurate understanding of the situation but that isn't clear yet.

And as for giving a simple explanation? Why is that a bad thing? I want to communicate clearly so you can understand me.

>That's why I can't stand LWers.

I'm not a LWer. I don't have an account there. I've never interacted with the community at all. I've just read some of the posts.

>Here's an excerpt on him talking about the basilisk.

Which just supports my understanding.

As he says:

>Basically, the same obvious precautions you'd use if Lovecraft's Necronomicon was online and could be found using simple Google keywords - you wouldn't post anything which would cause anyone to enter those Google keywords, unless they'd been warned about the potential consequences.

Which is analogy akin to my coding one.

>But since you are so DESPERATE to defend Elizer

I think Elizier is a pretty messed up person. He clearly has mental issues. At the same time, I am very thankful to him/LW/HPMOR for personal reasons. Which is why I will step up to defend him when I think he/LW is being, I guess slandered?

> (when I have not once said that I dislike him - something else that you would have noticed if you bothered to LISTEN)

I never accused you of disliking him.

Honestly though, for as much as you've condemned my behavior in this discussion, I'm not the one repeatedly insulting people.

[scott_s]

Please don't resort to personal insults on HN.