I wouldn’t be too sure about the direction of the conclusion. In particular, premature banning, rather than phasing out seems like it would increase the probability of successful pushback and more organized opposition.
Seems like a possible s-risk factor, too, by contributing to polarization and conflict.
I also think banning shouldn’t happen too early. I think we need a lot of moral progress to prepare for that.
Current theme: default
Less Wrong (text)
Less Wrong (link)
Arrow keys: Next/previous image
Escape or click: Hide zoomed image
Space bar: Reset image size & position
Scroll to zoom in/out
(When zoomed in, drag to pan; double-click to close)
Keys shown in yellow (e.g., ]) are accesskeys, and require a browser-specific modifier key (or keys).
]
Keys shown in grey (e.g., ?) do not require any modifier keys.
?
Esc
h
f
a
m
v
c
r
q
t
u
o
,
.
/
s
n
e
;
Enter
[
\
k
i
l
=
-
0
′
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
→
↓
←
↑
Space
x
z
`
g
I wouldn’t be too sure about the direction of the conclusion. In particular, premature banning, rather than phasing out seems like it would increase the probability of successful pushback and more organized opposition.
Seems like a possible s-risk factor, too, by contributing to polarization and conflict.
I also think banning shouldn’t happen too early. I think we need a lot of moral progress to prepare for that.