Felicifia: a Utilitarianism Forum

post by DanielLC · 2011-11-07T13:37:54.826Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 21 comments

Contents

21 comments

Utilitarianism seems to be a common theme on this site. I suggest checking out felicifia.org, a Utilitarianism forum. That is all.

21 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Normal_Anomaly · 2011-11-05T14:51:51.591Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Thanks for the link! There's a bunch of interesting stuff on here. For instance, here's a subforum on Felicifia that deals with futurism and xrisk:

Utilitarian future Will we transcend our human bodies? Extend our lives? Create superhuman artificial intelligence? Mitigate existential risks? etc.

There's currently a thread in it about whether SIAI is the most optimal charity.

comment by lukeprog · 2011-11-07T15:01:12.482Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

For example, l have an ongoing discussion on Friendly AI and utilitarianism at Felicifa.

comment by Wei Dai (Wei_Dai) · 2011-11-04T06:47:14.130Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I mentioned Felicifa in a previous post. Unfortunately the Felicifa post I was replying to has disappeared, and can't be found by Google either. I suggest that whoever is in charge ought to make a greater effort to preserve past discussions.

Replies from: Pablo_Stafforini, Baldcat, Pablo_Stafforini
↑ comment by Pablo (Pablo_Stafforini) · 2012-03-02T03:52:09.851Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

There are two Felicifias: the oridinal felicifia.com, which went extinct around 2007, and the current felicifia.org. Seth Baum, the creator of the original Felicifia, kindly sent me the files with all the original content. I am working with others at the current Felicifia to make this material publicly available.

↑ comment by Pablo (Pablo_Stafforini) · 2012-09-09T20:34:14.803Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Thanks to the efforts of Seth Baum and James Evans, the old Felicifia site is now back online. Please note that some of the links are not working because the site wasn't archived in its entirety. You can also browse the site by directory structure.

comment by Vladimir_Nesov · 2011-11-07T12:47:38.208Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Should this be in Main? I noticed it was moved here, but don't know who did it and why.

Edit: OK, moving back to Discussion, unless something new comes up.

Replies from: DanielLC
↑ comment by DanielLC · 2011-11-21T05:34:00.971Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I did it, and I initially planned to put it in main, but put it here because I was unsure of my writing skills. I didn't think it would have to go in discussion.

comment by Baldcat · 2011-11-04T04:07:29.422Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

In HTML, URLs must begin with the protocol or they will be assumed to be relative paths.

Change your code to felicifia.org.

Replies from: DanielLC
↑ comment by DanielLC · 2011-11-04T04:10:36.510Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Fixed.

Thanks.

comment by Solvent · 2011-11-07T10:09:55.151Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Yvain links to this in his brilliant Consequentialism FAQ.

Edit: Yvain not Gwern. Sorry.

Replies from: Nisan
↑ comment by Nisan · 2011-11-07T11:24:37.427Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

That's Yvain, not gwern.

Replies from: Solvent
↑ comment by Solvent · 2011-11-08T05:13:21.123Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Of course. Thanks for pointing it out.

comment by rabidchicken · 2011-11-04T04:50:04.525Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Good link, typo in title, have a good day, thank you for posting on Lesswrong.

Replies from: VNKKET, DanielLC
↑ comment by VNKKET · 2011-11-04T19:38:27.592Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Is this comment supposed to be pleasant or unpleasant?

Edit: I asked because "have a good day, thank you for posting" is often used to mean "shut up", but now that I've looked at your past comments, I assume you're being friendly.

↑ comment by DanielLC · 2011-11-05T00:04:40.298Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

typo in title

Fixed.

Thanks.

comment by Baldcat · 2011-11-04T04:10:40.221Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Prelude to this thread

Replies from: DanielLC
↑ comment by DanielLC · 2011-11-05T22:27:10.315Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Sort of. I was hoping someone else would write it for me. I suck at writing.

Replies from: dbaupp
↑ comment by dbaupp · 2011-11-06T04:17:30.028Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I suck at writing.

Don't say that, you are only reinforcing that cached self. A good way to improve your writing is to just do it, see what comes out, and iterate.

Replies from: DanielLC
↑ comment by DanielLC · 2011-11-06T06:42:40.958Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I don't like writing enough to do it enough. Besides, programming is more awesome anyway.

Replies from: dbaupp
↑ comment by dbaupp · 2011-11-06T10:34:14.798Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

That's understandable, but it is very easy for it to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. So I try to avoid saying "I suck at x" for any x, unless there is a very good reason to (like "I'm not very good at surgery").