I Stand by the Sequences

and don't disagree with anything I've ever seen written by Vladimir Nesov, Kaj Sotala, Luke Muelhauser, komponisto, or even Wei Da

This confuses me since these people are not in agreement on some issues.

"Think for yourself" sounds vaguely reasonable only because of the abominable incompetence of those tasked with thinking for us.

-- Steven Kaas

I write this because I'm feeling more and more lonely, in this regard. If you also stand by the sequences, feel free to say that. If you don't, feel free to say that too, but please don't substantiate it. I don't want this thread to be a low-level rehash of tired debates, though it will surely have some of that in spite of my sincerest wishes.

Why must we stand-by or stand-away-from? Personally, I lean towards the Sequences. Do you really need to feel lonely unless others affirm every single doctrine?

I think the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is the closest to correct and you're dreaming if you think the true answer will have no splitting (or I simply do not know enough physics to know why Eliezer is wrong, which I think is pretty unlikely but not totally discountable).

I accept the MWI of QM as "empirically adequate"; no more, no less.

I think cryonics is a swell idea and an obvious thing to sign up for if you value staying alive and have enough money and can tolerate the social costs.

Cryonics is interesting and worth considering, but the probabilities invovled are so low that it is not at all obvious it is a net win after factoring in signalling costs.

I think mainstream science is too slow and we mere mortals can do better with Bayes.

"Science" is so many different things that I think it is much more responsible to divide it up into smaller sets (some of which could really use some help from LessWrongists and others which are doing just fine, thank-you-very-much) before making such blanket generalizations.

I am a utilitarian consequentialist and think that if allow someone to die through inaction, you're just as culpable as a murderer.

This is a point on which I side with the mathematical economists (and not with the ethicists) and just say that there is no good way to make interpersonal utility comparisons when you are considering large diverse populations (or, for that matter, the "easy" case of a genetically related nuclear family).

I tentatively accept Eliezer's metaethics, considering how unlikely it is that there will be a better one (maybe morality is in the gluons?)

I am confused about Eliezer's metaethics. If you ask 10 LessWrongers what Eliezer's metaethical theory is, you get approximately 10 distinct positions. In other words, I don't know how high a probability to assign to it, because I'm very unsure of what it even means.

"People are crazy, the world is mad," is sufficient for explaining most human failure, even to curious people, so long as they know the heuristics and biases literature.

I agree. The world really is mad. I seriously considered the hypothesis that it was I who am mad, but rejected this proposition, party because my belief-calibration seems to be better than average (precisely the opposite of what you would expect of crazy people). Of course, "madness" is relative, not absolute. I am no doubt insane compared to super-human intelligences (God, advanced-AI, Omega, etc...).

I think the Sequences got everything right

That is quite a bit of conjunction you've got going on there. Rather extraordinary if it is true, I've yet to see appropriately compelling evidence of this. Based on what evidence I do see I think the sequences, at least the ones I've read so far, are probably "mostly right", interesting and perhaps marginally useful to very peculiar kinds of people for ordering their lives.

I also think the sequences are badly-organized and you should just read them chronologically instead of trying to lump them into categories and sub-categories, but I digress.

I think I agree with this.

Many-worlds is a clearly explicable interpretation of quantum mechanics and dramatically simpler than the Copenhagen interpretation revered in the mainstream. It rules out a lot of the abnormal conclusions that people draw from Copenhagen, e.g. ascribing mystical powers to consciousness, senses, or instruments. It is true enough to use as a model for what goes on in the world; but it is not true enough to lead us to any abnormal beliefs about, e.g., morality, "quantum immortality", or "possible worlds" in the philosophers' sense.

Cryonics is worth developing. The whole technology does not exist yet; and ambitions to create it should not be mistaken for an existing technology. That said, as far as I can tell, people who advocate cryonic preservation aren't deluded about this.

Mainstream science is a social institution commonly mistaken for an epistemology. (We need both. Epistemologies, being abstractions, have a notorious inability to provide funding.) It is an imperfect social institution; reforms to it are likely to come from within, not by abolishing it and replacing it with some unspecified Bayesian upgrade. Reforms worth supporting include performing and publishing more replications of studies; open-access publishing; and registration of trials as a means to fight publication bias. Oh, and better training in probability, too, but everyone can use that. However, cursing "mainstream science" is a way to lose.

Consequentialism is the ground of morality; in a physical world, what else could be? However, human reasoning about morality is embodied in cognitive algorithms that focus on things like social rule-following and the cooperation of other agents. This is why it feels like deontological and virtue ethics have something going on. We kinda have to deal with those to get on with others.

I am not sure that my metaethics accord with Eliezer's, because I am not entirely sure what Eliezer's metaethics are. I have my own undeveloped crank theory of ethical claims as observations of symmetry among agents, which accords with Eliezer's comments on fairness and also Hofstadter's superrationality, so I'll give this a pass. It strikes me as deeply unfortunate that game theory came so recently in human history — surprise, it turns out the Golden Rule isn't "just" morality, it's also algebra.

The "people are crazy" maxim is a good warning against rationalization; but there are a lot of rationality-hacks to be found that exploit specific biases, cognitive shortcuts, and other areas of improvability in human reasoning. It's probably more useful as a warning against looking for complex explanations of social behaviors which arise from historical processes rather than reasoned ones.

Furthermore, I agree with every essay I've ever read by Yvain, I use "believe whatever gwern believes" as a heuristic/algorithm for generating true beliefs, and don't disagree with anything I've ever seen written by Vladimir Nesov, Kaj Sotala, Luke Muelhauser, komponisto, or even Wei Dai;

Wow. One of these is not like the others! (Hint: all but one have karma > 10,000.)

In all seriousness, being placed in that group has to count as one of the greatest honors of my internet life.

So I suppose I can't be totally objective when I sing the praises of this post. Nonetheless, it is a fact that I was planning to voice my agreement well before I reached the passage quoted above. So, let me confirm that I, too, "stand by" the Sequences (excepting various quibbles which are of scant relevance in this context).

I'll go further and note that I am significantly less impressed than most of LW by Holden Karnofsky's critique of SI, and suspect that the extraordinary affective glow being showered upon it is mostly the result of Holden's affiliation with GiveWell. Of course, that affective glow is so luminous (the post is at, what, like 200 now?) that to say I'm less impressed than everyone else isn't really to say much at all, and indeed I agree that Holden's critique was constructive and thoughtful (certainly by the standards of "the outside world", i.e. people who aren't LW regulars or otherwise thoroughly "infected" by the memes here). I just don't think it was particularly original -- similar points were made in the past by people like multifoliaterose and XiXDu (not to mention Wei Dai, etc.) -- and nor do I think it is particularly correct.

(To give one example, it's pretty clear to me that "Tool AI" is Oracle AI for relevant purposes, and I don't understand why this isn't clear to Holden also. One of the key AI-relevant lessons from the Sequences is that an AI should be thought of as an efficient cross-domain optimization process, and that the danger is inherent in the notion of "efficient optimization" itself, rather than residing in any anthropomorphic "agency" properties that the AI may or may not have.)

By the way, for all that I may increasingly sound like a Yudkowsky/SI "cultist" (which may perhaps have contributed to my inclusion in the distinguished list referenced above!), I still have a very hard time thinking of myself that way. In fact, I still feel like something of an outsider, because I didn't grow up on science fiction, was never on the SL4 mailing list, and indeed had never even heard of the "technological singularity" before I started reading Overcoming Bias sometime around 2006-07.

(Of course, given that Luke went from being a fundamentalist Christian to running the Singularity Institute in less time than I've been reading Yudkowsky, perhaps it's time for me to finally admit that I too have joined the club.)

Once we get into the habit of openly professing our beliefs for sake of our micropolitics, we are losing a large portion of our bandwith to pure noise. I realise some amount of group allegiance signalling is inevitable always when an opinion is expressed, even when questions are asked, but the recent post by Dmytry together with this post are too explicit in this manner. The latter is at least honest, but I have voted both down nevertheless.

My "ick" sense is being set off pretty heavily by the idea of people publicly professing their faith in a shared set of beliefs, so this post makes me deeply uncomfortable. At best something like this is a self congratulatory applause light which doesn't add anything, at worst it makes us less critical and leads us further towards the dreaded c word.

I think this might be the most strongly contrarian post here in a while...

I'm pretty sad a post that consists entirely of tribal signaling has been voted up like this. This post is literally asking people to publicly endorse the Sequences because they're somehow under-attack (by whom?!) and no one agrees with them any more. Because some of us think having more smart people who disagree with us would improve Less Wrong? I find glib notions of a "singularity religion" obnoxious but what exactly is the point of asking people here to announce their allegiance to the site founder's collection of blog posts?

I think mainstream science is too slow and we mere mortals can do better with Bayes.

Then why aren't we doing better already?

I can't understand this. How could the sequences not be relevant? Half of them were created when Eliezer was thinking about AI problems.

That doesn't mean anything said in them is responsive to Holden's arguments.

I don't see what this adds beyond making LW more political. Let's discuss ideas, not affiliations!

If you agree with everything Eliezer wrote, you remember him writing about how every cause wants to be a cult. This post looks exactly like the sort of cultish entropy that he advised guarding against to me. Can you imagine a similar post on any run-of-the-mill, non-cultish online forum?

It worries me a lot that you relate ideas so strongly to the people who say them, especially since most of the people you refer to are so high status. Perhaps you could experimentally start using the less wrong anti-kibitzer feature to see if your perception of LW changes?

I stand by the sequences too. Except I'm agnostic about MWI, not because it makes no new predictions or another silly reason like that, but because I'm not smart and conscientious enough to read that particular sequence + a textbook about QM. And unlike you I'm sure that Eliezer's answer to the metaethics problem is correct, to the point that I can't imagine how it could be otherwise.

It's true that one possible reason why good contrarians are hard to find is that the group is starting to be cult-like, but another such reason is that the contrarians are just wrong.

I think the Sequences got everything right and I agree with them completely.

Even Eliezer considers them first drafts (which is, after all, what they were: a two-year exercise in writing raw material for the forthcoming book), not things to be treated as received wisdom.

My opinions:

• MWI seems obvious in hindsight.

• Cryonics today has epsilon probability of success, maybe it is not worth its costs. If we disregard the costs, it is a good idea. (We could still subscribe to cryonics as an altruist act -- even if our chances of being successfuly revived are epsilon, our contributions and example might support development of cryonics, and the next generations may have chances higher than epsilon.)

• Mainstream science is slow, but I doubt people will generally be able to do better with Bayes. Pressures to publish, dishonesty, congnitive biases, politics etc. will make people choose wrong priors, filter evidence, etc. and then use Bayes to support their bottom line. But it could be a good idea for a group of x-rationalists to use scientific results and improve them by Bayes.

• I think our intuitions about morality don't scale well. Above some scale, it is all far mode, so I am not even sure there is a right answer. I think consequentialism is right, but computing all the consequences of a single act is almost impossible, so we have to use heuristics.

• People in general are crazy, that's sure. But maybe rationality does not have enough benefit to be better on average; especially in a world full of crazy people. Maybe, after we cross the valley of bad rationality as a community of rationalists, this could change.

Generally, Eliezer's opinions are mostly correct, and considering the difficulty of topics he chose, this is very impressive. Also he is very good at explaining them. Mostly I like his attempt at creating a rationalist community, and the related articles -- in a long term, this might be his greatest achievement.

EDIT: The chance of being revived in a biological body frozen by today's cryonics are epsilon. (Seriously, pump your body with poison to prevent frost damage?) The chance of being uploaded could be greater than epsilon.

This is only tangentially related, but:

Having Eliezer's large corpus of posts as the foundation for LW may have been helpful back in 2009, but at this point it's starting to become a hindrance. One problem is that the content is not being updated with the (often correct) critiques of Sequence posts that are continually being made in the comments and in the comments of the Sequence reruns. As a result, newcomers often bring up previously-mentioned arguments, which in turn get downvoted because of LW's policy against rehashing discussions. Additionally, the fact that important posts by other authors aren't added to the Sequences is part of what gives people the (incorrect) impression that the community revolves around Eliezer Yudkowsky. Having a static body of knowledge as introductory material also makes it look like the community consensus is tied to Eliezer's beliefs circa 2007-2009, which also promotes "phyg"-ish misconceptions about LW.

An alternative would be for LW to expect newcomers to read a variety of LW posts that the community thinks are important rather than just the Sequences. This would show newcomers the diversity of opinion on LW and allow the community's introductory material to be dynamic rather than static.

"I think mainstream science is too slow and we mere mortals can do better with Bayes."

I never understood this particular article of LW faith. It reminds me of that old saying "It's too bad all the people who know how to run the country are too busy driving taxicabs and cutting hair."

I agree that there is quite a bit of useful material in stuff Eliezar wrote.

I reject MWI, reject consequentialism/utilitarianism, reject reductionism, reject computationalism, reject Eliezer's metaethics. There's probably more. I think most of the core sequences are wrong/wrongheaded. Large parts of it trade in nonsense.

I appreciate the scope of Eliezer's ambition though, and enjoy Less Wrong.

"There's been a lot of talk here lately about how we need better contrarians. I don't agree. I think the Sequences got everything right and I agree with them completely." But presumably theres room for you to be incorrect? Surely good contrarians would help clarify your views?

Also, when people talk about contrarians they talk of specific conclusions present in the sequences and in less wrong in general- MWI, cryonics, specific ethical conclusions, and the necessity of FAI. I suspect most visitors to this website would agree with much of the sequences- the best posts (to my mind) are clearly expressed arguments for rational thinking.

You are stating 7 points. It's at least 128 different world views from there, depending on what one agrees.

I am number 25 school member, since I agree with the last and two more.

I doubt, that there is a lot of school number 127 members here, you may be the only one.

I largely agree with the Sequences, and I also don't care for "low-level rehashes of tired debates", but I am wary of dismissing all disagreement as "low-level rehashes of tired debates".

I think people participating on LW should be familiar with the arguments presented in the Sequences, and if they disagree, they should demonstrate that they disagree despite knowing those arguments. When people fail to do this, we should point it out, and people who repeatedly fail to do this should not be taken seriously.

Thank you for saying this, Grognor! As you say, being willing to come out and say such is an important antidote to that phyg-ish nervous expression.

That is pretty much my view as well. The only substantial disagreements I have with Eliezer are the imminence of AGI (I think it's not imminent at all) and the concept of a "Bayesian" superintelligence (Bayesian reasoning being nothing more than the latest model of thinking to be taken as being the key to the whole thing, the latest in a long line of fizzles).

I think criticism of the OP on the ground of conjunction improbability are unfounded. The components are not independent, and no-one, including the OP, is saying it is all correct in every detail.

ETA: And I'm not any sort of utilitarian. I don't know what I am, but I know I'm not that, and I don't feel a pressing need to have a completely thought out position.

I regard the Sequences as a huge great slab of pretty decent popular philosophy. They don't really tread much ground that isn't covered in modern philosophy somewhere: for me personally, I don't think the sequences influenced my thinking much on anything except MWI and the import of Bayes' theorem; I had already independently come to/found most of the ideas Eliezer puts forward. But then again, I hadn't ever studied philosophy of physics or probability before, so I don't know whether the same would have happened in those areas as well.

The novel stuff in the sequences seems to be:

• The MWI stuff
• The focus on probabilistic reasoning and Bayesianism
• The decision theory/AI stuff
• The cohesiveness of it.

I think the last point is the most important: the particular cluster of LW philosophical positions occupies a quite natural position, but it hasn't had a good systematic champion yet. I'm thinking of someone who could write LW's Language, Truth and Logic. The Sequences go some way towards that (indeed, they are similar in a number of ways: Ayer wrote LTL in one go straight through, as the Sequences were, being a set of blog posts).

So I'll be interested to read Eliezer's book; but I suspect that it won't quite make it to "towering classic" in my books, probably due to lack of integration with modern philosophy. We should learn from the mistakes of philosophers!

EDIT: To avoid joining the profession-of-faith-club: I have plenty of significant points of disagreement as well! For example, Eliezer's metaethics is both wrong and deeply confused.

I agree with everything in this article, except for one thing where I am undecided:

Furthermore, I agree with every essay I've ever read by Yvain, I use "believe whatever gwern believes" as a heuristic/algorithm for generating true beliefs, and don't disagree with anything I've ever seen written by Vladimir Nesov, Kaj Sotala, Luke Muelhauser, komponisto, or even Wei Dai; policy debates should not appear one-sided, so it's good that they don't.

But that is only because I have yet to read anything big not by EY on this site.

I think the sequences are amazing, entertaining, helpful and accurate. The only downside is that EY's writing style can seem condescending to some.

Yes.

I am also in this boat. Well said.

(or I simply do not know enough physics to know why Eliezer is wrong, which I think is pretty unlikely but not totally discountable).

How much physics do you know?

I tentatively accept Eliezer's metaethics, considering how unlikely it is that there will be a better one (maybe morality is in the gluons?)

What about this thread?

I agree. I think that the reason why it seems as though people who think that the sequences are awesome don't exist is partially because of selection bias -- those that disagree with the sequences are most likely to comment about disagreeing, thus lending disproportionate weight on people who disagree with certain parts of the sequences.

I found the sequences to be a life changing piece of literature, and I usually consider myself fairly well read, especially in regards to the general population. The sequences changed my worldview, and forced me to reevaluate my entire inner philosophy. Suffice to say, had I not stumbled upon the sequences, my life would have taken an entirely different path.

I think that for every person who dismisses the sequences as "unimportant" or "arrogant", there are many more lurkers out there who have found the sequences to be amazing in helping improve their instrumental rationality, and vastly improve the quality of their lives.

That said, I agree with almost all the points regarding the sequences except what you mentioned regarding Science vs Bayes.

I think mainstream science is too slow and we mere mortals can do better with Bayes.

I disagree with this aspect because I think scientists can not and should not be trusted with Bayesian Inference -- mostly because firstly, science should be sure of it's conclusions, rather than assigning probability estimates to different interpretations. The potential for human judgement to be wrong coupled with the fact that often, wrongness has large consequences in the field of science warrants me to believe that the risk is not worth the possible speed of progress that we would gain.

Other than that, I wholeheartedly agree with almost all of the points in the Sequences, and I'd like to say that "I stand by the sequences", too.

I write this because I'm feeling more and more lonely, in this regard. If you also stand by the sequences, feel free to say that.

Most of your post describes my position as well, i.e. I consider the sequences (plus a lot of posts by Yvain, Lukeprog etc.) to be closer to truth than what I could work out by myself; though that only applies to stuff I'm sure I understand (i.e. not the Metaethics and QM).

I don't technically believe the literal word of the all sequences, but I to follow your general policy that if you find yourself disagreeing with someone smarter than you, you should just belive what they do, that this community way overvalues contrarians, and that the sequences is mostly right about everything that matters.

To me personally, the most useful part of the Sequences is learning to ask the question "How does feel from the inside?" This dissolves a whole whack of questions, like the proverbial [lack of ]free will, reality of belief and many other contentious issues. This ties into the essential skill of constructing a mental model of the person asking a question or advancing an argument. I find that most participants on this forum fail miserably in this regard (I am no exception). I wonder if this is on the mini-camp's agenda?

(In the spirit of making forceful declarations of stances.)

I am a utilitarian consequentialist

Is this prescribed by the sequences? If so (and, I suppose, if not) I wholeheartedly reject it. All utilitarian value systems are both crazy and abhorrent to me.

and think that if allow someone to die through inaction, you're just as culpable as a murderer.

Your judgement is both distasteful to me as a way of evaluating the desirability of aspects of the universal wave function and highly suspect as a way of interacting practically with reality. Further, this is a position that I consider naive and offensive when implemented via social moves against others. If Eliezer actually said that people should have this belief he is wrong.

Furthermore, I agree with every essay I've ever read by Yvain, I use "believe whatever gwern believes" as a heuristic/algorithm for generating true beliefs, and don't disagree with anything I've ever seen written by Vladimir Nesov, Kaj Sotala, Luke Muelhauser, komponisto, or even Wei Dai

I have seen disagreements among people on that list. In fact, I've seen Vladimir openly disagree with his past self. Good for him. Bad for you.

Since you agree with all of Eliezer's posts, I recommend that you reread this post right now.

I mostly agree with this, with one reservation about the "mainstream science is too slow" argument.

If we understood as much about a field as scientists, then we could do better using Bayes. But, I think it's very rare that a layman could out-predict a scientist just using Bayes without studying the field to the point where they could write a paper in that field.

I think mainstream science is too slow and we mere mortals can do better with Bayes.

I don't understand what this means at all. Who are these "mere mortals" ? What are they doing, exactly, and how can they do it "better with Bayes" ? If mainstream science is too slow, what will you replace it with ?

Uh... This "phyg" thing has not died yet?

I wonder if anyone actually thinks this is clever or something. I mean, inventing ways to communicate that are obscure to the public is one of the signs of a cult. And acting like you have something to hide just makes people think you do. So while this might give us a smaller signature on Google's radar, I cringe to think of actual human newcomers to the site, and their impression.

Also, a simple call to sanity: the blog owner himself has written posts with cult in the very title. I just put "cult" and "rationality" into google and I see 2 references to LW in the first 10 (unpersonalised) results. It's kinda late to start being sneaky...

My weak prediction hasn't been entirely on mark... The word did migrate to RationalWiki, but other than being in the "The Bad" section, I don't see it expressly mocked. This is the one time where - LW-supporter though I most of the time am, and one who agrees with most of what Grognor said - I'm going to say "too bad".

_

(I apologise about being kinda off topic. This was prompted by a bunch of comments on this page and elsewhere more than Grognor's post, except the part where he makes "phyg" a tag.)

I stand by the sequences. When I first found them, I knew that they were/are the single most comprehensive treatment of epistemic thinking that I was going to encounter anywhere.

Dropping out of lurk-mode to express support and agreement with your tone and aim, though not necessarily all of your points separately.

ETA: Argh, that came out clunky. Hopefully you grok the intent. Regardless; I know to whom I owe much of my hope, kindness and courage.

I agree with your first 2 bullet points. I agree with the third, with the caveat that doing so leads to a greater risk of error. I'm a consequentialist with utilitarianism as a subset of my values. I think "culpable" refers to how society should treat people, and treating people who fail to save lives as murderers is infeasible and unproductive. I choose TORTURE over SPECKS in the relevant thought experiment, if we stipulate that there are 3^^^3 distinct possible people who can be specked, which in reality there aren't. I want to sign up for cryonics. I like EY's metaethics, and agree that lots of people are crazy.

In addition to that: I think UFA is a risk worth worrying about and working to mitigate and FAI is worth pursuing. I think EY's sequence on words is true, and makes conversations much easier when both people have read it.

I enjoyed reading (most of) the Sequences, but I'm stunned by this level of agreement. I doubt even Eliezer agrees with them completely. My father always told me that if I agreed with him on everything, at least one of us was an idiot. It's not that I have a sense of "ick" at your public profession of faith, but it makes me feel that you were too easily persuaded. Unless, of course, you already agreed with the sequences before reading them.

Like Jayson_Virissimo, I lean towards the Sequences. Parts I reject include MWI and consequentialism. In some cases they have caused me to update away from them. For instance, before reading them, I leaned towards materialism, but they helped persuade me to become a substance dualist, despite the author's intention.

My sense is that the attitude presented in the article and in Yvain's linked comment is problematic in somewhat the same way as asexual reproduction is a problematic as an evolutionary strategy.

Agreeing with something so big (but coherent inside itself) wholesale is a normal reaction if you consume it over small time and it doesn't contain anything you feel is a red flag. It can persist for a long time, but it can easily be either an actual agreement or an agreement "with an object" without integrating and cross-linking the ideas into your bigger map.

Fortunately, it looks like "taboo" technique is quite effective on a deeper level, too. After avoiding using terms, notions, arguments from some body of knowledge in your thinking, you start to agree with it point-by-point, and not think of it as of indivisible whole. You also start to find common ideas and clear disagreements with the other sources when you revisit the tabooed object. Usually, you start to disagree with a few minor details at that point, unless experimental evidence is abundant and not many inferences are drawn.

Oh, and while my priors are such that I don't agree with much of the Sequences, Sequences are a nice body of work and explain many ideas and their implications extremely well.

I agree.

Any belief that I can be argued into by a blog post I can also probably be argued out of by a blog post.

"This of course makes me a deranged, non-thinking, Eliezer-worshiping fanatic for whom the singularity is a substitute religion."

Yes, it does. Seek professional help.

My current most serious quibble with the Sequences is that they do not make it clear that the map/territory meme is just a model. A very useful one in many contexts, but still only a model. One case where it fails miserably is QM, leading to the wasteful discussions of MWI vs collapse (which one is "the territory"?).

The other, minor one, is that it makes amateurs honestly think that they can do better than domain experts, just by reading the Sequences:

I think mainstream science is too slow and we mere mortals can do better with Bayes.

There are so many fallacies in this statement, I don't even know where to start.

Is there a kill thread feature, like SL4's list sniper, to filter out noise?