Poll (see above tweet for context)
民意调查（请参见上面的推文了解上下文）
以太坊 的最新消息
Go through this list (it's from https://slatestarcodex.com/201...), and keep track of how many items elicit a positive emotional gut response in you, and how many elicit a negative one (if truly neutral, count as 0.5 for both).
How many negative responses did you get? (poll in next tweet) https://t.co/FVYoJF3u8k
浏览此列表（来自https://slatestarcodex.com/201...)，并记录有多少项目能激发你积极的情绪直觉反应，有多少项目能激发消极的情绪直觉反应（如果真的是中性的，则两者都算作0.5）。
你得到了多少负面回应？（在下一条推文中投票）https://t.co/FVYoJF3u8k
Poll (see above tweet for context)
民意调查（请参见上面的推文了解上下文）
Go through this list (it's from https://slatestarcodex.com/201...), and keep track of how many items elicit a positive emotional gut response in you, and how many elicit a negative one (if truly neutral, count as 0.5 for both).
How many positive responses did you get? (poll in next tweet) https://t.co/qjtUqKi1Mn
浏览此列表（来自https://slatestarcodex.com/201...)，并记录有多少项目能激发你积极的情绪直觉反应，有多少项目能激发消极的情绪直觉反应（如果真的是中性的，则两者都算作0.5）。
你得到了多少积极的回应？（在下一条推文中投票）https://t.co/qjtUqKi1Mn
@inudreamu Nah, WW3 may kill 1-2b (mostly from food supply chain disruption) if it's really bad, it won't kill off humanity. A bad AI could truly kill off humanity for good.
@第三次世界大战可能导致120亿人死亡（主要是由于食品供应链中断），如果情况真的很糟糕，它不会杀死人类。一个糟糕的AI真的可以永远消灭人类。
Unfriendly-AI risk continues to be probably the biggest thing that could seriously derail humanity's ascent to the stars over the next 1-2 centuries. Highly recommend more eyes on this problem. https://twitter.com/MIRIBerkel...
A list from @ESYudkowsky of reasons AGI appears likely to cause an existential catastrophe, and reasons why he thinks the current research community — MIRI included — isn't succeeding at preventing this from happening. https://www.lesswrong.com/post...
发表时间：4年前 作者：MIRI @MIRIBerkeley不友好的人工智能风险可能仍然是未来1-2个世纪可能严重阻碍人类升天的最大因素。强烈建议更多关注此问题。https://twitter.com/MIRIBerkel...
@ESYudkowsky列出了AGI可能导致生存灾难的原因，以及他认为目前的研究社区（包括MIRI）未能成功阻止这种情况发生的原因。https://www.lesswrong.com/post...
RT: ✨SOULBOUND✨
@VitalikButerin & @provenauthority discuss:
What does decentralized, trustless, digital identity look like?
On-chain Soulbound NFTs?
OR
Off-chain Verifiable Credentials?
Where will the future of Web3 identity live?
🚨LIVE IN2️⃣HOURS🚨
https://youtu.be/TbyVyVNsyys https://t.co/RxiSdNzpe9
转发：✨灵魂绑定✨
@VitalikButerin&@普罗旺斯当局讨论：
去中心化、不可信的数字身份是什么样子的？
链上灵魂绑定NFT？
或
链外可验证凭据？
Web3身份的未来在哪里？
🚨住在2号楼️⃣小时🚨
https://youtu.be/TbyVyVNsyys https://t.co/RxiSdNzpe9
RT: The Ropsten network just merged!
One of the last testnets until we merge on the #Ethereum mainnet🐼
https://ropsten.beaconcha.in/ https://t.co/knd1IBlD8A
RT：Ropsten网络刚刚合并！
在我们合并到#以太坊主网之前的最后一个测试网之一🐼
https://ropsten.beaconcha.in/ https://t.co/knd1IBlD8A
@NathanpmYoung Or in the cool kids' lingo:
Wordcel accountability vs shape rotator accountability.
@NathanpmYoung或用孩子们的酷行话：
Wordcel责任vs shape rotator责任。
@NathanpmYoung Another way to think about this distinction is linguistic/verbal accountability vs mechanism-driven accountability.
Do you "have to explain yourself" to someone who might then make a decision, or is there an impersonal thing that just imposes the consequence?
@NathanpmYoung思考这一区别的另一种方式是语言/语言责任与机制驱动责任。
你是否必须向可能做出决定的人“解释你自己”，或者是否有一件非个人的事情只是强加了结果？
@danfinlay Right, accountability is about aligning means to ends, so it doesn't make sense for tasks that are fundamentally about choosing the ends.
@danfinlay是的，问责制是指将手段与目的相结合，因此对于从根本上讲是选择目的的任务来说，它没有意义。
@TrustlessState Also, small-block proponents sometimes recommend this book as an expression of their perspective on the situation:
https://www.amazon.com/Blocksi...
First chapter here:
https://blog.bitmex.com/the-bl...
@不可信任的国家同样，小规模的支持者有时会推荐这本书来表达他们对形势的看法：
https://www.amazon.com/Blocksi...
此处第一章：
https://blog.bitmex.com/the-bl...
@TrustlessState This covers only part of the issue but is still good:
https://medium.com/@johnblocke...
@TrustlessState这只涵盖了部分问题，但仍然很好：
https://medium.com/@约翰·布洛克。。。
I would say that in general the biggest evil is not accountability or unaccountability, but *imbalanced accountability* - being accountable for some types of consequences but not others.
This creates a clear imbalance, where people target only the thing that is being measured.
我想说，总的来说，最大的罪恶不是问责或不负责任，而是“不平衡的问责”——对某些类型的后果负责，而不是对其他类型的后果负责。
这造成了明显的不平衡，人们只针对被测量的对象。
One way to read @robinhanson is that wants more accountability everywhere:
Voting -> prediction markets
Regulation -> mandatory liability insurance
The general principle: if you sign off on something that turns out bad, you pay up. Ideally run the entire gov on that principle.
阅读《罗宾汉》（robinhanson）的一种方式是，希望在任何地方都有更多的责任感：
投票->；预测市场
法规->；强制性责任保险
总的原则是：如果你在结果不好的事情上签字，你就要付出代价。理想情况下，按照这一原则运行整个政府。
Anon culture is about having less accountability, with the goal of allowing people to authentically speak their minds.
As an anon, you don't get negative personal consequences for saying things others dislike, but you also miss out on lots of positive personal consequences.
Anon文化的目的是减少责任感，让人们真正说出自己的想法。
作为一个无名小卒，你不会因为说别人不喜欢的话而产生负面的个人后果，但你也会错过很多积极的个人后果。
"Accountability" is viewed by most people as a virtue, but it's interesting to look at cases where *lack of accountability* is an explicit goal of some system.
Examples:
* Voting (secret ballot)
* Juries
* Tenure
* Anonymous complaints
* Privacy norms/rules/laws
“问责”被大多数人视为一种美德，但看看“缺乏问责”是某个系统明确目标的案例就很有趣了。
示例：
*投票（无记名投票）
*陪审团
*任期
*匿名投诉
*隐私规范/规则/法律
@AFDudley0 Lots of technical reasons too. Fundamental mismatch with key goals (eg. economic finality)
@还有很多技术原因。与关键目标的根本不匹配（如经济最终性）