META: Sysops basics are still "exhausted" for SL4

From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (
Date: Thu Jan 31 2002 - 21:23:12 MST

Alan Grimes wrote:
> 1. How would it be held accountable. (there must _ALWAYS_ be checks and
> balances)
> 2. Would there be an option of living outside the system, say on a
> different planet...

> That's fair, but why would it need to be implemented as anything beyond
> a shielding system for people who choose to use it?

> Power guarentees corruption.
> If the SI is not corrupt, it will be hacked and corrupted from the
> outside. Once that happens, it will be the end.
> Case in point: Windows XP.


These questions were dealt with previously on the SL4 list. Please see
the archives.

The standing policy of the SL4 list is that once a question like this has
been debated at length, it becomes "used up" and rehashing of the topic
for newcomers is discouraged or even flatly prohibited. Someone who reads
through the archives (or who was present for the original discussion, of
course) may post if they have something new to say, naturally. But in
this case, I rule as list moderator that these particular questions about
the Sysop scenario are "exhausted". As always, this doesn't mean that one
is obligated to take a particular view, simply that arguing your own
position is no longer deemed appropriate behavior on SL4. If you aren't
willing to take the time to read the past threads, then tough luck; we're
not willing to rehash it for you.

To find the threads in question, try:

It would be helpful if somebody produced a "highlights of Sysop discussion
on SL4" page, containing just links to the most interesting posts...
Gordon, you want to add that to the To-Do list?

-- -- -- -- --
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT