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 Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T234cfbcefa1d1d24-Mf6dda8cdf72303d1055e936e Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription