“Information hazard” is a term from the Rational Altruist community that many wealthy people in the AI industry have paid attention to, as well as people like Sam Bankmanfried and at least one cult (the zizians). Despite a lack of reasonable evidense/logic to their claims.
Thus using the term seriously is an information hazard, in that it leads others to not take you seriously.
Fucking “rationalists” and their stupid claim that knowing things is harmful. Also, most lawyers aren’t asking about jury nullification, because people who hear that term are probably gonna look it up (giving them a chance to do it)… This isn’t a movie.
Stupid argument. Clearly information can be harmful. If you tell a deeply depressed person how to easily kill themselves is obviously harmful to that person.
The court will ask you if you know anything that may cause you to make a judgement based in bias not the law (or something similar). They are asking the question without asking the question.
Also the original source of a word or idea does not invalidate the word/idea. Fucking Plato invented feminism in the same chapter he argued for eugenics. Any rational person would agree that this source is not sufficient to disregard the entire idea. But by your own admission we have already established you don’t support rationalism.
Knowing how to kill yourself won’t increase or decrease the outcome of depression, because that knowledge isn’t driving the depression. The problem is the depression, its causes, and its severity (jumping off tall place, or running into traffic isn’t difficult to figure out). Knowing methodologies is of marginal influence to how depressed the person is. Severity of the condition is the primary factor to the outcome.
Also, fuck no I don’t support the “Rational Altruist” or the “Effective Altruism” movements because I don’t get caught up in shitty ass word games and poorly crafted “thought experiments”.
Those people are idiots. Those groups are full of really smart dumb people.
Also “Rationalism” in general has a fraught history, from Ayn Rand to Economic Rationalism. People are better off acknowledging that they’re not always rational and shouldn’t seek to be.
“Information hazard” is a term from the Rational Altruist community that many wealthy people in the AI industry have paid attention to, as well as people like Sam Bankmanfried and at least one cult (the zizians). Despite a lack of reasonable evidense/logic to their claims.
Thus using the term seriously is an information hazard, in that it leads others to not take you seriously.
Fucking “rationalists” and their stupid claim that knowing things is harmful. Also, most lawyers aren’t asking about jury nullification, because people who hear that term are probably gonna look it up (giving them a chance to do it)… This isn’t a movie.
Stupid argument. Clearly information can be harmful. If you tell a deeply depressed person how to easily kill themselves is obviously harmful to that person.
The court will ask you if you know anything that may cause you to make a judgement based in bias not the law (or something similar). They are asking the question without asking the question.
Also the original source of a word or idea does not invalidate the word/idea. Fucking Plato invented feminism in the same chapter he argued for eugenics. Any rational person would agree that this source is not sufficient to disregard the entire idea. But by your own admission we have already established you don’t support rationalism.
Knowing how to kill yourself won’t increase or decrease the outcome of depression, because that knowledge isn’t driving the depression. The problem is the depression, its causes, and its severity (jumping off tall place, or running into traffic isn’t difficult to figure out). Knowing methodologies is of marginal influence to how depressed the person is. Severity of the condition is the primary factor to the outcome.
Also, fuck no I don’t support the “Rational Altruist” or the “Effective Altruism” movements because I don’t get caught up in shitty ass word games and poorly crafted “thought experiments”.
Those people are idiots. Those groups are full of really smart dumb people.
Also “Rationalism” in general has a fraught history, from Ayn Rand to Economic Rationalism. People are better off acknowledging that they’re not always rational and shouldn’t seek to be.