<story><title>Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Absolutely Right About Racist Algorithms</title><url>https://breakermag.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-is-absolutely-right-about-racist-algorithms/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>darkpuma</author><text>&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;&amp;quot;This is because of the regretful (but understandable) decision to censor discussion of it on Less Wrong, which backfired spectacularly.&amp;quot;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Can you explain the (understandable) rationale behind Less Wrong censoring discussion of Roko&amp;#x27;s Basilisk?  I&amp;#x27;ve been lead to believe it was censored out of fear that discussing it could somehow inspire its actual creation.&lt;p&gt;Honestly from a distance Less Wrong has always struck me as vaguely cult-like, but I&amp;#x27;m open to the possibility I&amp;#x27;ve just gotten the wrong impression.</text></item><item><author>ThrustVectoring</author><text>The second half of the article that talks about Yudkowsky, rationalists, and Roko&amp;#x27;s Basilisk is absolute trash and a gross mischaracterization of the actual positions taken.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;Yudkowski has for more than a decade pursued the possibility of perfect human reasoning&lt;p&gt;His website is literally called &amp;quot;Less Wrong&amp;quot;. It&amp;#x27;s fundamentally a quest for &lt;i&gt;improvement&lt;/i&gt;, not perfection.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;His system of coldly logical reason, it turned out, was by many accounts completely undone by a logical paradox known as Roko’s Basilisk.&lt;p&gt;Roko&amp;#x27;s Basilisk is a thought experiment designed to import your &amp;quot;don&amp;#x27;t negotiate with terrorists&amp;quot; intuitions into a really weird corner of decision theory. It&amp;#x27;s possibly why prior decision theories held were rejected as flawed, but it&amp;#x27;s not a current issue with their logic. Roko&amp;#x27;s Basilisk has, unfortunately, gotten way more coverage and fame than it deserves in terms of actual importance. This is because of the regretful (but understandable) decision to censor discussion of it on Less Wrong, which backfired spectacularly.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;For super-nerd bonus points, it’s also arguably a spin on Godel’s incompleteness theorem, which argues that no purely rational algorithmic system can completely and consistently model reality, or prove its own rationality.&lt;p&gt;That&amp;#x27;s not at all what Godel&amp;#x27;s incompleteness theorem argues. That&amp;#x27;s much more narrowly about formal logic.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>ThrustVectoring</author><text>Sure thing. The basilisk can easily be misread as an argument to do everything in one&amp;#x27;s power to support AI research of some sort. It&amp;#x27;s more accurately an argument that you should ensure your decision theory doesn&amp;#x27;t coerce you into putting all your effort into supporting AI research. LessWrong has a bunch of really scrupulous people reading it, who take pride in taking ideas seriously, so censoring the discussion seemed worthwhile for avoiding the failure mode of having readers make the mistake mentioned previously.</text></comment>
<story><title>Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Absolutely Right About Racist Algorithms</title><url>https://breakermag.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-is-absolutely-right-about-racist-algorithms/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>darkpuma</author><text>&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;&amp;quot;This is because of the regretful (but understandable) decision to censor discussion of it on Less Wrong, which backfired spectacularly.&amp;quot;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Can you explain the (understandable) rationale behind Less Wrong censoring discussion of Roko&amp;#x27;s Basilisk?  I&amp;#x27;ve been lead to believe it was censored out of fear that discussing it could somehow inspire its actual creation.&lt;p&gt;Honestly from a distance Less Wrong has always struck me as vaguely cult-like, but I&amp;#x27;m open to the possibility I&amp;#x27;ve just gotten the wrong impression.</text></item><item><author>ThrustVectoring</author><text>The second half of the article that talks about Yudkowsky, rationalists, and Roko&amp;#x27;s Basilisk is absolute trash and a gross mischaracterization of the actual positions taken.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;Yudkowski has for more than a decade pursued the possibility of perfect human reasoning&lt;p&gt;His website is literally called &amp;quot;Less Wrong&amp;quot;. It&amp;#x27;s fundamentally a quest for &lt;i&gt;improvement&lt;/i&gt;, not perfection.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;His system of coldly logical reason, it turned out, was by many accounts completely undone by a logical paradox known as Roko’s Basilisk.&lt;p&gt;Roko&amp;#x27;s Basilisk is a thought experiment designed to import your &amp;quot;don&amp;#x27;t negotiate with terrorists&amp;quot; intuitions into a really weird corner of decision theory. It&amp;#x27;s possibly why prior decision theories held were rejected as flawed, but it&amp;#x27;s not a current issue with their logic. Roko&amp;#x27;s Basilisk has, unfortunately, gotten way more coverage and fame than it deserves in terms of actual importance. This is because of the regretful (but understandable) decision to censor discussion of it on Less Wrong, which backfired spectacularly.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;For super-nerd bonus points, it’s also arguably a spin on Godel’s incompleteness theorem, which argues that no purely rational algorithmic system can completely and consistently model reality, or prove its own rationality.&lt;p&gt;That&amp;#x27;s not at all what Godel&amp;#x27;s incompleteness theorem argues. That&amp;#x27;s much more narrowly about formal logic.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>chongli</author><text>I think the more charitable interpretation is that the discussion was taking over everything. If people are fixating on a narrow topic for a long time (without much progress) then sometimes it&amp;#x27;s helpful to say &amp;quot;alright people, let&amp;#x27;s move along now.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;You&amp;#x27;re right about Less Wrong feeling like a cult, though. It gives me the heebie-jeebies.</text></comment>