His writings are more of an interest to people who are interested in researching particular modes of thought in various sub-cultures. In this case, how antiquated views of "rationality" are gaining popularity in Silicon Valley pop-philosophy: http://harpers.org/archive/2015/01/come-with-us-if-you-want-...
He is a cult-leader, not a researcher, and like all cult leaders, his talents lie in charmingly convincing gullible victims that his thoughts are profound, when, in fact, they don't exceed those of a very intelligent 14-year-old know-it-all. If you approach his writings as actual philosophy (rather than intriguing historical documents of a techno-libertarian cult, which is what they are), after reading them you are certain to know less of philosophy than when you've started, even if your original knowledge was absolute zero.
His writings are to philosophy what Fox News is to news: inspire and agitate unquestioning followers, while making sure they don't learn about the world by constructing an elaborate -- and enticing -- virtual world to isolate them from reality.
And I get the point of it not being too rigorous in academic sense. Sure, no arguments there.
The point I would like to make is that dismissing thinkers due to their writing style, personality issues, oddities, etc, can lead to very problematic outcomes. Many top thinkers in history have had childish qualities and were not well-rounded fully functional "normal" human beings. "Normal"s are too busy leading productive lives to write thousands of pages on vaguely identified future risks. The types of blind spots that these odd thinkers can uncover in the rest of the society can be very useful in improving everyone's lives. The guy who pointed out the toxicity of lead had to go through same type of ridicule by the society that was busy applying a layer of lead paint on every flat surface, including their faces. Same with many others pointing out practical risks that the society is currently blind to. Off the top of my head, other famous weirdos with odd beliefs, yet huge contributions to science/tech: Faraday, Tesla.
Also, I do not doubt for one second their ability to improve some people's lives. If they didn't, he wouldn't have had a following.
One might view this as a style/personality jab rather than an issue with rigor.
All I'm saying is Sheldon Cooper types have moved things forward for the rest of society more often than people realize.
Also, it would help to hear why you're so dismissive of the underlying arguments. One of their core ideas is that technology (specifically AI) can grow to surpass human level intelligence and pose a threat to the civilization. This is not a vacuous statement or a lunatic's fantasy, we have seen many other types of technology develop to a point where they pose an existential risks (e.g. nuclear weapons). If anything, the dismissal of AI-related risks reveals very clear blind spot / lack of rigor in most people's reasoning. "Because it hasn't happened yet, it must not be a problem we should worry about."
Rarely outside of their narrow field of expertise. I have no doubt that a real-life Sheldon Cooper would have made great contributions to physics. Philosophy, however, would not be his strong suit.
> Also, it would help to hear why you're so dismissive of the underlying arguments.
I haven't dismissed the conclusions, just said I disagree with many of them. I have dismissed their inclusion under the term philosophy because they don't follow the method. It is not a matter of style, just as following deduction rules and proven theorems through a careful precise process is not a style of mathematics but is mathematics. Eliezer Yudkowski makes some intriguing arguments, but they are political more than philosophical in their method.
> If anything, the dismissal of AI-related risks reveals very clear blind spot / lack of rigor in most people's reasoning. "Because it hasn't happened yet, it must not be a problem we should worry about."
Indeed, that is not why people with rigorous thinking on the subject dismiss the threats cautioned by the singularitarians. Also note that many people warn of AI risks all the time (forget true AI, people are warning against current use of machine learning), it's just that those are not the same risks the singularitarians are alarmed about.
In any event, very good arguments against singularitarian alarmism are found in abundance and that is not the topic of this discussion.
Earlier: > If they uncover anything, it is the very interesting political foundations of a group of people
That sounds like a classic dismissal to me.
--
Anyway, not to get bogged down in a silly semantic argument. Who cares if it's real philosophy? I've tried reading Heidegger when I was young and naive. If that's real philosophy, I'll pass, thank you.
If you have substantial, rigorous arguments against the existential risks posed by AI-based tech, I'd love to hear those, otherwise what you're saying sounds a lot more like an emotional and political reaction (presumably from the left end of the political spectrum).
Techno-libertarian? I'll grant you the techno part, but lesswrong/the internet rationality people are about 70% left-wing and 25% libertarian.
So, what cult does he run, and what makes it a cult?
EDIT: I agree with the parent reply that Elizer's writings do not rise to the level of good philosophy, but don't believe that 'singularitarianism' can currently be considered a cult. But it possesses some attributes similar to cults so I believe it's correct to call it a 'cult-like' or 'proto-cult' belief system.
But cult-like at least to me implies more negative connotations. Isolating people from their friends & families. Abusive behavior towards its members. Stuff like that. Compounds where people live etc...
Has this singularity "cult" even hurt anyone?
I did not mean it like that, and if that is how people understood it then I apologize. I meant it in the sense defined by Wikipedia: "In the sociological classifications of religious movements in English, a cult is a religious or social group with socially deviant or novel beliefs and practices". Or, in other words, a small fringe (possibly non-theistic) religion.
FWIW, take it from me as someone with a sense of humor who's a little closer to the situation: Yudkowsky is clearly not a cult leader because he only has one sex slave. A cult leader would have five or more. As for the actual ideas, if his writing style bothers you then Nick Bostrom's book Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies is a good entry point (from an academic philosopher).
I am sorry for using the word with its the academic meaning, which is what I'm familiar with[1], rather than the colloquial one. As I said in another comment, I am not a native English speaker, so I was not familiar with the colloquial connotation of the word in English. Indeed, I now see on Wikipedia that English speakers are often confused by the use of the word in texts translated from other languages (where it carries the same definition but without the same negative connotations).
[1]: My favorite professor said, "There are only two profitable things you can do with an academic training in history: work as a technical advisor for historical movies or form a cult".
And to be honest, I wouldn't even call the singularity culture a religion. It has no supernatural beings (no gods as you, but no angels or whatever as well). No magical beliefs. By that I mean things like the idea that prayer can heal. No ways to worship. No prescriptions on how to live your life. Literally the only thing is singularity = rapture.
Like honestly, what makes it a religion? Its just a weird idea that nerds like to talk about.
Perhaps, but my training was in (mostly medieval) history, and that is the usage I'm most familiar with (I am not a native English speaker, either).
> And to be honest, I wouldn't even call the singularity culture a religion. It has no supernatural beings (no gods as you, but no angels or whatever as well). No magical beliefs. By that I mean things like the idea that prayer can heal. No ways to worship.
None of those are required of a religion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
In particular, consider the Clifford Geertz quote: "[Religion is a] system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."
But again, my terminology is academic rather than reflecting everyday use.
> No prescriptions on how to live your life.
With that I would disagree.
What prescriptions does singulartism give on how to live?
>None of those are required of a religion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
If you want to call the singularity culture a cult or religion, I'm not going to stop you. You can define things however you want. However, from what I see it has little in common with other things I would call cults, and other things I would call religions.
Now if you are honestly consistent, I will applaud you. So I am curious to ask. What are some other cults, aside from the ones I would agree to be cults (Scientology and such). What are some other religions aside from the ones I would agree to be religions (Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and such...).
I'm just basically curious what else you call a cult/religion aside from singularity + the stereotypical stuff.
Well, not singularitarianism alone, because it is certainly just a subset of a belief system, but the prescriptive side of that culture is known as CFAR[1], I believe, where Yudkowsky plays a role.
> You can define things however you want.
Not how I want, but how academics who study religion define them.
> What are some other cults, aside from the ones I would agree to be cults (Scientology and such). What are some other religions aside from the ones I would agree to be religions (Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and such...)
A notable one (that has so far taken many forms) is New Age. It is related to another called theosophy (of the Theosophical Society).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Applied_Rationality
So I won't attempt that here. Instead, I'll tell my (random internet guy's) feelings and vague ideas: You know when you meet a stranger and you feel something is off, but you don't really know what, but something's funny? Martial art and personal defense coaches usually recommend that you listen to this feeling and act accordingly.
Singulitarianism is basically an apocalyptic doom-religion. It follows the same scheme. For example, I just read a reddit thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/3vsoe7/chri...) the other day and the post reminded me of Singulitarianism a lot. There is an apocalypse, some external information that you should rely on instead of you intuitive faculties because they are biased and unreliable, but if you follow the path of the leader you'll be saved.
Also, its followers react to criticism similarly to religious people.
And another problem is that nobody serious has ever rolled up their sleeves, went through and criticized the whole mess of their Bible (called Sequences), a massive collection of writings, interlinked thousand-fold in an intricate complex network. Simply because the people who could do this don't care much about some random guy posting stuff to his blog.
Fortunately since the Basilisk story came out and we could see Yudkowsky's reaction, it was an eye-opener for many people. Still his movement is quite well-spread and gets linked to often by CS people, mathematics students etc.
And I won't start to refute individual claims. I admit this. The thing is not about the individual claims but the way they are linked and the kind of narrative it builds. The untold assumptions lurking in the background etc. The way he tries to take credit for age-old ideas by renaming them and not caring about the origin of them, since the history of philosophy is irrelevant anyway, we should just read his blog posts and related stuff.
My advice for novices is to start with the mainstream. You can of course criticize the mainstream once you have sufficient knowledge. Read textbooks, classical works, go to universities, take interesting courses etc. Don't teach yourself this stuff from a random guy's blog who has no qualifications on anything he speaks about (which isn't a disproof but a red flag).
I've been vague and I stand by it. Yes I might have been irrational in my comment or led by feelings and emotions. I don't care. I just had to put this out here. I don't aim my paragraphs as ultimate refutation but as a warning. I felt I had to write this for the benefit of people who may be new to this man's world.
And another problem is that nobody serious has ever rolled up their sleeves, went through and criticized the whole mess of their Bible (called Climate Science Papers), a massive collection of writings, interlinked thousand-fold in an intricate complex network. Simply because the people who could do this don't want to be criticized in the media.
Fortunately since the Climategate story came out and we could see the leadership's reaction, it was an eye-opener for many people. Still this movement is quite well-spread and gets linked to often by journalists, politicians, etc.
None of your critiques are remotely specific to lesswrong. All could be equally well applied to climate science or a variety of other things where I suspect you'd be unwilling to apply it.
But Climate science is a lot less about an Apocalypse. Mainstream climate science isn't about a total wiping out of humanity but a few degrees of change in temperature, extreme weather, more deserts, floods etc., which are terrible catastrophes but nowhere near on the scale that Yudkowsky likes to dream up (evil robots destroying everything and torturing and extorting and creating myriads of simulations of simulations of you being tortured in the worst ways possible in various hypothetical, counterfactual scenarios to acausally motivate you to serve these evil overlords etc.)
Also, climate science doesn't ask you to "obviously" dismiss reputable fields and past sources. It's just a very bad analogy. The best defense of Singulitarianism is the "but what if you're wrong" kind of betting. Because their imagined doom scenario is so extremely unimaginably bad, they argue that they can get away with little proof, since multiplying the huge disaster with a little probability still gives a large expected risk. They like to say "shut up and multiply" as a slogan for this, i.e. multiply probability and outcome to get the expectation. He lays the groundwork and path for this such that if you gradually get into his system, he can take you in the woods without you noticing. It's no less than a panic-inducing mind virus.
And yeah, you can say I didn't disprove him with this. I don't want to. My main point is: don't start with his writings and don't recommend them to people who are uneducated in these topics. You'll do them a favor by recommending reputable sources.
You are sounding like a climate skeptic.
What does Yudkowsky ask you to "obviously dismiss"?
Near as I can tell, your only critique of Yudkowsky is that he asks you to consider various philosophical and scientific edge cases that are outside of the social mainstream, and are therefore somehow wrong in a way you refuse to discuss.
The Basilisk is an organic outgrowth from it. And it's just one of many. They follow naturally from the tenets of the religion, they aren't outliers or "bad apples".
It is relevant. Look what you wrote:
>Yudkowsky likes to dream up (evil robots destroying everything and torturing and extorting and creating myriads of simulations of simulations of you being tortured in the worst ways possible in various hypothetical, counterfactual scenarios to acausally motivate you to serve these evil overlords etc.)
Unless I am mistaken, this is a clear reference to Roko's basilisk. EXCEPT Yudkowsky didn't dream it up. Roko did.
Can you elaborate on your issues w/ the Basilisk? As far as I am concerned its just a thought experiment. If Yudkowsky had actually tried to get people to give him money or something via it you would have a good complaint... but he didn't.
Correct, I was conflating things. But his unfriendly AI scenario is pretty bad too.
My issue with it is that it's a symptom of an over-confident belief system naturally leading people to such conclusions. And now I don't want to get into refuting it, it's been done numerous times to varying degrees. I think the whole underlying system is problematic, there is no superficial mistake in the reasoning, once you accept a few philosophical standpoints and value judgments that the reader is spoon-fed while reading his blog posts.
I have no idea what muslims truly believe and I don't even care too much. What I care about is the effects of their beliefs...Terrorism is an organic outgrowth from it. And it's just one of many...
I take it that if Donald Trump makes this claim, you'll support it?
I don't have enough information to agree or disagree with johann30 specific claim, and I can't comment to the negative effects he says he had witnessed on himself and others (all I know is that Yudkowsky is neither a philosopher nor an expert on the subject), but your analogy did not resemble his idea at all.
If I understand what the term means to you I can avoid that in the future.
Your post (and you post a lot of these) takes the form of logically substituting one expression for an equivalent one, but that's not what you're doing at all—you're simply pretending to. Not even mathematical expressions can be substituted that way without careful proof that every step preserves the meaning, and natural language simply doesn't work this way to begin with. It isn't valid to rip something out of its context, do major surgeries on it, then fling it back with the claim that it's what the other is really saying. When the thing you're flinging back seems designed to be offensive, the likelihood that this is sincere communication, aiming at understanding, plummets.
Many of your recent comments seem crafted to be technically unimpeachable while still tweaking people's noses. I could be wrong about that and would prefer to be; it's hard to read intent. But the fact that they come across that way is already a problem. You'd contribute more of value if you sincerely, and not only technically, eliminated that element and sought neutral ground with others. Note that this doesn't entail changing your views, though it can involve making an assessment of how much the conversation can tolerate before it goes haywire, and calibrating accordingly. But that's part of civil discourse anyhow. It makes no sense to send messages with little chance of being received.
And of course there is possibly a distinguishing principle that Johann30 used as an unstated premise - that's just a flaw of natural language. But I realize I could have been clearer in allowing for that possibility. I'll try to be more literal in the future.
I understand you want others to stop being provoked by my comments, but I can't really control that.
What is the concrete action you'd like me to take? Will being more literal and explicitly requesting the elucidation of unstated premises/stating that I obviously don't think the person believes the contradictory conclusion/etc be sufficient? Should I include an explicit disclaimer that I'm making an argument by contradiction? Or are arguments by contradiction now explicitly disallowed (only constructive logic, I guess)?
I have no idea what X truly believe and I don't even care too much. What I care about is the effects of Y ... Z is an organic outgrowth from it. And it's just one of many...
Your claim is that if you substitute in any X, Y and Z (where X, Y and Z are consistent with each other), the statement is equivalent. You want the original poster to reply to this idea. Dan's point, which I agree with, is that putting in emotionally charged X, Y and Z is not civil, promotes emotional responses and is effectively trolling.
(I also happen to agree with Dan that the particular X, Y and Z matter, and the sentences are not necessarily logically equivalent with any X, Y and Z. But it's still possible to make the above argument without the emotional baggage. I understand it's a rhetorical technique to shock the reader into seeing what you perceive as sloppy thinking, but I think it is more likely to inflame and prevent discussion on the original topic.)
I agree that the particular X/etc sometimes matters. And a valid argument against mine would be to give a clear limiting principle (something unstated in the original post, but perhaps implicit?) that applies to the critique of less wrong but fails for Islam.
Pron kind of tried to do this - he said Johann30's argument can only apply to small groups and Islam is large (though where this large vs small distinction comes from is unstated).
To take a mathematical (and hopefully completely uncontroversial) example of this:
Fool: "The sum of IID random variables is gaussian. Therefore $Z"
Smartass: "Oh yeah? What about C/(1+x^2)? Your argument is invalid."
Fool: "Oops I meant IID random variables with finite variance, just thought that was implicit and obvious."
Of course, if Fool can't come up with that added clause then the Smartass has disproven him.
https://www.quora.com/Hacker-News-How-come-I-cant-reply-in-a...
I think that's a pretty good lesson from PG!
One must keep the ability to laugh at oneself, to be able to humorously see a kind of futility in what one does but dance the dance anyway. Clenching too hard, making one more nested iteration in the prisoner's dilemma or the chicken game won't help.
Also don't take stuff more seriously than a certain ceiling.
For me, reading about Zen ideas helped me get out of this narrow, "rationalized", neatly ordered, algorithmic, packaged-and-labeled way of thinking. Metaphorically it's kind of the difference between a probabilistic machine learning system vs. a symbolic knowledge system where everything is defined precisely and unambiguously and every rule is laid out etc.
I'm still materialist and atheist, but I think being too deeply involved in any ideology is harmful (be it Marxism or Fascism or Scientology or LW). Yeah, you can reflect upon whether it's possible to live truly independent of ideologies without making or finding a new one for yourself. But there are certain indicators, like when you feel you're getting distanced away from the people around you physically, when you start feeling superior for belonging to the in-group etc., it usually means you're just not noticing some aspects and are obsessing over something. Sure one can say that if innovators thought like this and always stayed in line of the mainstream, we never would have gotten Ford or Jobs etc. And there is truth to this, but it kind of sounds like "X dropped out of college and went on to be successful therefore dropping out of college is a good idea". No, generally the good idea is to be humble and positive about the people around you, be open and reflective but not obsessive and be able to relax.
It's not so much that we "hate" Elizer, like Aljik suggests, it's just that on the whole - compared to the many mindblowing authors mentioned in this thread - Elizer just isn't particularly outstanding. Someone has to say it, lest anyone reading this for the first time gets the wrong impression.
Anyone's welcome to still read him, for all we care, but you may as well be getting your philosophy education from Cosmopolitan.
Of course, but I'd qualify this a bit. If you are in a life situation where you feel alone or in need of a community, you feel you're not included enough, or feel "smarter" and more reflective than your environment, then spending time at LW can amplify your smugness and stroke your ego to the point of not noticing what you are turning into. I saw many people there with milder psychological problems. Really, a psychologist would probably have an interesting time analyzing the "life advice/coaching/coping" parts of that forum.
However, if you're living a balanced, good life, reading this stuff won't matter much. It's similar in many ideologies. If you're in a receptive situation, then Scientology, or Reddit's Redpill, or basically any elitist, enlightening type of subculture along the lines of "you now understand what it all really is about" can be harmful.
Sorry what? You have to say that isn't outstanding, unless some one gets the impression he is?
Maybe this is crazy idea, but if Elizier wasn't outstanding... wouldn't that be something people would figure out for themselves? On the otherhand if people are reading his works, and walking away with the impression that he is outstanding, couldn't it simply be that it is? And even so, who are you to say that is wrong?
On the other hand, if there really are authors who write about similar things,but better than Yudkowsky I would be interested in reading (I haven't found any).
So, since you claim to know of such things, could you pick something Yudkowsky has written about and name me another who does it better?
I am some random anon posting their views on the internet, as is every other person here. It's called having a conversation.
"So, since you claim to know of such things, could you pick something Yudkowsky has written about and name me another who does it better?"
Yes, I could. But since you've so far been a total arrogant assface, and since your tone implies that - rather than a genuine interest - you simply want to bait me into a further argument so you can show off how much you're in love with Elizer... I'm going to pass. Do your own research if you're so "interested".
For a conversation you being pretty insulting. But, no, contrary to your assumption its actual curiosity.
If you are worried about this argument continuing if you refer me to such works, I promise not discuss them if you post them.
I agree with singularity being like a religion. I think the singularity is nonsense. On the otherhand I don't think the rest of your accusations are accurate.
First, I'm not sure I would name Yudkowsky the leader of the singularity culture. Of lesswrong certainly, but lesswrong is dead. Yudkowsky is about as much a leader of the singularity stuff, as P.G. is of "hacker" culture. A big name with writings on philosophy and the culture. Honeslty I would name Kurzweil as a far bigger person w.r.t singularity stuff. He is far more known.
Furthermore no where does Yudkowsky say anything like "if you follow me you'll be saved". In fact he probably believes the singularity will save everyone (if friendly a.i).
This is where I expect you to bring up Roko's Basilisk. For those unaware, Roko's Basilisk is the idea that a A.I may retroactively punish people who didn't assist in it's development. Therefore if you don't want to suffer you should donate money and time to creating A.I.
First of all, this was idea was created by a guy called, Roko. Not Yudkowsky. Yudkowsky doesn't believe it. Yudkowsky's response among other things was to say that it was not ethical of Roko to write about the basilisk, if Roko really believed it to be true.
Kind of like how sometimes atheists will say that Christians shouldn't proselytize to people who have never heard of Christianity, because if they don't know about it, God can't very well send them to hell for their disbelief.
Anyways I am interested to hear why you felt so strongly you had to warn us off him. The hate Yudkowsky gets is something I don't understand but want too.
Sorry if I come across as warning too much. It probably depends on your personality type. If you are a very reflective and self-critical person, you can tie yourself up with his philosophy I can tell you that much. Now, granted, the consequences of something don't tell much about the truth of that thing (just like the "God exists because if God exists then I feel safe and happy and gives meaning to my life" is a bad argument.), still - keeping in mind that we are discussing whether a novice should be advised to read Yudkowsky - I think there are better choices.
I absolutely think that if you're above average smart but lack the factual, lexical knowledge, then reading his stuff can be detrimental to your intellectual development. You're better off without it. Yeah, you can make the case for going through such experiences, just like you can make the case that going through drug addiction and recovery can make you a better/stronger person in some sense, but as a first approximation it's better to stick with mainstream literature. That's the main point I'm trying to argue for.
And I have to add that it's weird and frustrating to argue about this because obviously those defending his ideology are smart enough to come up with good counterarguments. It's nothing like debating with, say, Young Earth Creationists. These people (perhaps including you) are often intelligent, tech/math/CS-literate people. The point of disagreement is of a finer nature that is hard to even discuss because that whole aspect is usually dismissed as "useless philosophy".
It's somewhat akin to https://xkcd.com/793/ where someone who masters one technical field feels an immense power or superiority and becomes a bit smug.
Feynman had the cred to be able to say "If you don't like it [the way nature works], go somewhere else; to another universe maybe", but talking in this kind of confident way requires a very solid background. I'm not talking about prizes, simply actual results. And I know it's difficult due to the nature of the topic (studying a hypothetical unknown-probability event that can wipe out everything), but this sort of cop-out is just not convincing.
Um. You might want to read up on what Scientology is; they're not even remotely in the same league. For example, Yudkowsky has never been accused of war crimes. Also, his brainwashing technique seems to be a bunch of essays, rather than, say, a biofeedback device coupled with personalized verbal abuse and a systematic dismantling of peoples' personal relationships.
That's what really put me off of the LW community as a whole - that condensing attitude of superiority over anyone not in the in-group. There was a telling comment in one of the articles that went along the lines of: "Oh yeah, LW is not for everyone. It takes a particular kind of person to discuss the intricacies of the Newcomb's problem day in and day out". That made me cringe so much when I read it. Like, jeez, just get over yourself, no one cares how "smart" you are.
That is not to say that I don't occasionally agree with his conclusions, but his process lacks the originality and constant self-doubt that makes philosophy so entertaining and interesting. Instead, it offers dismissal or certainty -- stuff that may make religion or blog posts entertaining. But that's not philosophy.
Besides, my vague insults are pretty much the common view (which is actually far more dismissive than I have been). It is anyone in the small minority who considers Yudkowsky a philosopher that requires substantive justification. In any case, even if you find his writings convincing, Yudkowsky would still make for a very bad foray into philosophy, because he tends to make up his own nomenclature rather than use accepted one (and present age-old ideas as his own). His fondness of definitive answers and ridicule of others means his work mostly serves to confuse rather than enlighten anyone who is interested in what philosophers do, or what current interesting debates are taking place. Even if you disagree with all that, you would surely agree that a fringe thinker, unrecognized by the academic community and who's not recognized to have made a single original contribution to the field (pretty much by anyone) is probably not the best guide for a beginner.
So why should I take the common view seriously? If vague insults are all professional philosophers have to offer, what's their value here?
I didn't know tone policing/tone trolling was such an important part of philosophical discourse.
I said that I occasionally agree with his conclusions. I mostly don't. But I'm not the ultimate judge of correctness, and I can't give the final ruling on them one way or another (that's not how philosophy works). However:
> I didn't know tone policing/tone trolling was such an important part of philosophical discourse.
Not tone but process. Yudkowsky may be correct in the same way that the pope may be correct (BTW, I find both to occasionally raise a though-provoking issue), or both may inspire (different) people, but that makes neither of them philosophers because what they do isn't philosophy. I'll put it another way: your grandmother may make you soup when you're sick and it may (or may not) actually help you, but that doesn't mean she's practicing medicine.
The mere discussion, however, of "tone policing/tone trolling" is very much in line with what Yudkowsky does, which may best be described as expressing a certain political ideology regarding science, philosophy, knowledge, public discourse etc.. Everyone, of course, is entitled to their opinions and their ideologies, but that alone is not enough to make them philosophers, even if they try to keep their arguments consistent.
So if you eat these ideas at the right time, you won't find anything suspicious about him lacking any reputation, any qualifications. He's trying to sell you the idea that he's so much above the ridiculous ideas of the mainstream that he doesn't need to go among them an get tested by them, he tries to sell you that this is just signalling, the way a really rich person doesn't need to show off expensive items, or a big dog doesn't need to bark as much.
Another thing about the anti-inductive meme is that seeing the world thought these glasses makes you kind of paranoid. Because how can you know if the thing you conclude shouldn't be the exact opposite? You know, maybe the system figured out what you will think, it simulated you and now you are supposed to outsmart that system, etc. When in reality, the overwhelming majority of everyday things are straightforward and inductive and rarely go deeper than 1 or 2 levels of "simulating the other". But his focus on the superintelligent being makes you think subconsciously that this is the nature of the current world as well, and a lack of qualifications should actually be seen as a proof of skill, not as a counterevidence.
Maybe you say nobody would think that, but I did, some years ago. I got sucked into his writings and I was gullible. Since then I have learned a lot from other sources and can see much better how he rips off previous ideas, repackages them and creates a crazy ideology.
You say it like it's not true. Traditional education is a mess. A lot of it is smoke and mirrors and signaling. Which is why online education is huge and growing.
True.
> but if you really want to get things done, it's more efficient to self-study and concentrate on the really important things, skipping all this mess that is education.
Also true, at least some of the time.
However, it does not follow that the uncredentialed person telling you that education doesn't matter is therefore right in the rest of what he/she is telling you.
Where did I say that it follows?
Also, AFAIK Robin Hanson is a full econ professor.
Yudkowsky isn't some devious mastermind trying to brainwash people into thinking wrong so he can. So he can what? Even if he was a devious mastermind who created a polemic work so as to get people to think wrong... what would his goal be?
I don't have enough time now, but at some point I may try to summarize the specific patterns of thought that are most problematic in their treatment of counterfactuality, acausality, simulations, free will, anti-inductivity, signaling etc.
I'm not saying he's devious. I think he probably believes what he says as far as I can tell or care. But it's irrelevant.
And about normal people: there are writings scattered around the internet about similar experiences and there are probably more in private exchanges (as the posts themselves describe). I even read about things akin to support groups. Of course I shouldn't blow this out of proportion, we aren't talking about masses of people here.
Like if people were donating all their money to A.I because of the Basilisk, or killing themselves while gambling because they've taken many worlds too far, or something I could see why you would be so urgent to warn people away from Yudkowsky. What is you are so concerned with?
It's more philosophical than what most philosophers do, as long as they dismiss people out of hand.
Yudkowsky at least admits others have ideas worth engaging with.
It's like someone wrote a lovecraft-style horror story, forgot that it was fiction, and totally lost their shit over it.
It used to be a banned discussion on LessWrong because it's supposedly a truth so horrifying that it'll destroy your mind as soon as you understand it.
.... if that's not cult behavior then I don't know what is!
That is ridiculous. It isn't such a thing and no one believes it to be such a thing. That isn't why it was banned.
To make an analogy, say I believed I created some code, that if ran, would kill the person who was using the computer it ran on. Then I posted that code online.
In some-sense, that would be really dumb of me. Even if you don't believe that my code actually works, you can still be consistent when criticizing me for sharing it.
The second issue that maybe in the future, such a thing will be possible. Maybe computers and humans will be so integrated that you can kill people with malicious software.
Those are the reasons the Basilisk was banned. Do I think banning them was the appropriate action? No. It was Yudkowsky power-tripping cause hes arrogant. Is it as you or others make it out to be? No.
Except that I've actually met the infamous Roko, and given your shitty explanation I seem to have a better handle on the issue than you do.
So, think about what that means for a second. Without knowing anything about me, your first reaction to seeing me disagree with you was to assume that I simply do not understand the issue as well as you do, and then to proceeded to lecture me on it in the most simplest and infantile way possible.
That right there? That kind of arrogance which makes you speak over whomever you are talking to in order to shove your view into their face, all the while assuming that you need to explain the most basic things to them? That's why I can't stand LWers. That's why you guys reek of being a cult with no actual interest in rationality.
But since you are so DESPERATE to defend Elizer (when I have not once said that I dislike him - something else that you would have noticed if you bothered to LISTEN), I'll let him speak for himself. Here's an excerpt on him talking about the basilisk.
"To reduce the number of hedons associated with something that should not have hedons associated with its discussion, I will refer to the subject of this discussion as the Babyfcker. The Babyfcker will be taken to be associated with UFAIs; no Friendly AI worthy of the name would do that sort of thing.
Point one: Suppose there were a flaw in your argument that the Babyfcker can't happen. I could not possibly talk publicly about this flaw.
...
Point four: If I could go back in time and ask Roko to quietly retract the Babyfcker post without explanation, I would most certainly do that instead. Unfortunately you can't change history, and I didn't get it right the first time."
You can read the rest of the rant here: https://www.reddit.com/r/LessWrong/comments/17y819/lw_uncens...
I'll humbly let the readership of HN decide for themselves what they think of this sort of philosophy.
Peace.
Not, I assumed you had different understanding. Maybe you do have a more accurate understanding of the situation but that isn't clear yet.
And as for giving a simple explanation? Why is that a bad thing? I want to communicate clearly so you can understand me.
>That's why I can't stand LWers.
I'm not a LWer. I don't have an account there. I've never interacted with the community at all. I've just read some of the posts.
>Here's an excerpt on him talking about the basilisk.
Which just supports my understanding.
As he says:
>Basically, the same obvious precautions you'd use if Lovecraft's Necronomicon was online and could be found using simple Google keywords - you wouldn't post anything which would cause anyone to enter those Google keywords, unless they'd been warned about the potential consequences.
Which is analogy akin to my coding one.
>But since you are so DESPERATE to defend Elizer
I think Elizier is a pretty messed up person. He clearly has mental issues. At the same time, I am very thankful to him/LW/HPMOR for personal reasons. Which is why I will step up to defend him when I think he/LW is being, I guess slandered?
> (when I have not once said that I dislike him - something else that you would have noticed if you bothered to LISTEN)
I never accused you of disliking him.
Honestly though, for as much as you've condemned my behavior in this discussion, I'm not the one repeatedly insulting people.