Re: SL4?

From: Michael Vassar (
Date: Wed Jan 18 2006 - 12:32:49 MST

Well, if you have anything to say, please do so, and try to improve the
average post quality.

I'm not sure whether calling upon the more clueful lurkers to post more
often can be effective. Studies show that the most incompetent people in a
domain are often the most deluded regarding their competence, especially
when competence is hard to measure objectively (e.g. not arithmatic or
spelling). Where competence is objective, if at all possible people find
ways of being proud of incompetence.

At any rate, I will try. Please people. If you know what you are talking
about, speak up. We need to know you are there and that we aren't speaking
to an empty room.

>From: Patrick Crenshaw <>
>Subject: Re: SL4?
>Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:07:11 -0500
>Yeah, this is one of the main reasons I quit posting to the list. When
>I first started reading the list I was hoping to learn some stuff
>about AI, but I haven't really learned anything here.
>On 1/18/06, Michael Vassar <> wrote:
> > Actually, the content of this list has always averaged low SL3, but with
> > distribution that included a substantial amount of SL4 material
> > much SL2 and even Sl1 material. There has been a decline in list
> > over the last few months however. The list snipers have been relatively
> > inactive. More importantly, without a useful "best of" archive, new
> > would-be posters have no low time investment option for catching up with
> > or high SL3 thinking so almost none of them bother to do so. We are
> > decending to the level of other Transhumanist lists, e.g. good
> > for smart people who aren't trying to save the world and for whom this
> > material is fairly new, but understanding worse than some highly capable
> > people had achieved by the late 1980s.
> >
> >
> >

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT