From: Richard Loosemore (rpwl@lightlink.com)
Date: Fri Aug 25 2006 - 12:12:36 MDT
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> Richard Loosemore wrote:
>>
>> This impression would be a mistake. To take just the issue of
>> friendliness, for example: there are approaches to this problem that
>> are powerful and viable, but because the list core does not agree with
>> them, you might think that they are not feasible, or outright
>> dangerous and irresponsible. This impression is a result of skewed
>> opinions here, not necessarily a reflection of the actual status of
>> those approaches.
>
> I am not familiar with any published approaches to the problem that are
> "powerful" and "viable". I include CFAI and CEV in this summary. CFAI
> is not powerful and probably not viable; CEV is a statement of goals.
>
> It seems to me that you have a systematic problem with airy references
> to literature that exists somewhere only you can see it. Give three
> examples.
>
> I fully expect that Richard Loosemore's response will complain about how
> dreadfully unfair and unprofessional it is of me to dare say that he has
> a systematic problem about anything, and what an awful place the SL4
> mailing list is; but he will not, of course, give the three examples. I
> am giving this challenge, not in the hopes that Loosemore will respond
> with actual examples, but so that everyone else knows that the above
> paragraph is, in fact, false - a bluff, to put it bluntly. If Loosemore
> was interested in responding constructively, Anissimov asked politely
> one day ago, and Loosemore could have chosen to respond to that.
>
> It should moreover be obvious that if Loosemore is *not* bluffing and
> wants to decisively win this argument, he can give three examples and
> *then* complain about how terribly he's been insulted.
>
I need to respond to this message in two separate chunks.
You say:
> If Loosemore
> was interested in responding constructively, Anissimov asked politely
> one day ago, and Loosemore could have chosen to respond to that.
For your information, Yudkowsky, in the time since Michael Anissimov
asked politely, one day ago, I have written some 2000 words of a book
chapter and also a very detailed 2700-word reply to another polite
request that came to me off-list, on the Apollo-Project topic.
I had every intention of promising Anissimov a thoughtful reply to his
request: I simply didn't get the *time*.
Err.... how much time do you normally give someone to respond, before
you start denouncing them?
Richard Loosemore.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:57 MDT