I myself hold opinions that are "taboo" in some circles. For instance: I, as a 
woman, am open to the idea that there could be *on-average* differences between 
the sexes, in terms of career interest and perhaps even aptitude. However, I 
would still take it poorly if people on this list started using denigrating 
terms for women, or questioning the engineering competence of any woman who 
shows up.

Even if (and that is a big if) there are such things as genetic predispositions 
to morally relevant behaviors, individuals are quite capable of bucking the 
trend/average. The only correct way to judge individuals is on the basis of 
their own character and behavior. Everyone deserves respect until they do 
something to merit otherwise, and no one who comes to this list should be 
verbally attacked, insulted, or made to feel unwelcome on the basis of their 
presumed skin color. Open hostility is not conducive to constructive discussion 
about AGI, and should lead to warnings and bans.

It's tougher to decide what to do about people like Mentifex, whom I've never 
seen being hostile -- just deluded and annoying. I suppose it's obvious to 
everyone that he achieves nothing useful and misrepresents the capabilities of 
his project. However, I can imagine edge cases where it's more difficult to 
tell whether someone is misrepresenting their work or not.  And at what point 
does self-promotion become spam?  Would it be possible to establish a concrete 
rule for this list that Mentifex can be said to have broken?  Or would banning 
him simply be a "judgment call"?  I'm not wild about subjective judgment calls, 
whether made by mods or by democratic voting.
Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI
Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription

Reply via email to