Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on Call for new SIAI Visiting Fellows, on a rolling basis - Less Wrong

29 Post author: AnnaSalamon 01 December 2009 01:42AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (264)

Comments (264)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky comment score below threshold [+] (26 children)

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 03 December 2009 06:24:49PM 1 point [-]

That comment was intended as the last if m. doesn't suddenly turn reasonable, and more for the benefit of lurkers (since this topic isn't frequently discussed).

Comment author: wedrifid 03 December 2009 10:37:08PM 0 points [-]

As a curiosity, having one defector in a group who is visibly socially penalized is actually a positive influence on those who witness it (as distinct from having a significant minority, which is a negative influence.) I expect this to be particularly the case when the troll is unable to invoke a similarly childish response.

Comment author: mormon2 05 December 2009 05:22:30AM -1 points [-]

"As a curiosity, having one defector in a group who is visibly socially penalized is actually a positive influence on those who witness it (as distinct from having a significant minority, which is a negative influence.) I expect this to be particularly the case when the troll is unable to invoke a similarly childish response."

Wow I say one negative thing and all of a sudden I am a troll.

Let's consider the argument behind my comment:

Premises: Has EY ever constructed AI of any form FAI, AGI or narrow AI? Does EY have any degrees in any relevant fields regarding FAI? Is EY backed by a large well funded research organization? Could EY get a technical job at such an organization? Does EY have a team of respected experts helping him make FAI? Does EY have a long list of technical math and algorithm rich publications on any area regarding FAI? Has EY ever published a single math paper in for example a real math journal like AMS? Has he published findings on FAI in something like IEEE?

The answer to each of these questions is no.

The final question to consider is: If EY's primary goal is to create FAI first then why is he spending most of his time blogging and working on a book on rationality (which would never be taken seriously outside of LW)?

Answer: this is counter to his stated goal.

So if all answers being in the negative then what hope should any here hold for EY making FAI? Answer: zero, zilch, none, zip...

If you have evidence to the contrary for example proof that not all the answers to the above questions are no then please... otherwise I rest my case. If you come back with this lame troll response I will consider my case proven, closed and done. Oh and to be clear I have no doubt in failing to sway any from the LW/EY worship cult but the exercise is useful for other reasons.

Comment author: wedrifid 05 December 2009 06:00:58AM 6 points [-]

Has EY ever constructed AI of any form FAI, AGI or narrow AI?

Nobody has done the first two (fortunately). I am not sure if he has created a narrow AI. I have, it took me a few years to realise that the whole subfield I was working in was utter bullshit. I don't disrespect anyone else for reaching the same conclusion.

Does EY have any degrees in any relevant fields regarding FAI?

He can borrow mine. I don't need to make any paper planes any time soon and I have found ways to earn cash without earning the approval of any HR guys.

Is EY backed by a large well funded research organization?

No.

Could EY get a technical job at such an organization?

He probably lacks the humility. Apart from that, probably yes if you gave him a year.

Does EY have a team of respected experts helping him make FAI?

There are experts in FAI?

Does EY have a long list of technical math and algorithm rich publications on any area regarding FAI?

I would like to see some of those. Not the algorithm rich ones (that'd be a bad sign indeed) but the math ones certainly. I'm not sure I would be comfortable with your definition of 'rich' either.

Has EY ever published a single math paper in for example a real math journal like AMS? Has he published findings on FAI in something like IEEE?

No. No. Both relevant.

Comment author: CronoDAS 05 December 2009 07:16:46AM * 9 points [-]

Has EY ever published a single math paper in for example a real math journal like AMS? Has he published findings on FAI in something like IEEE?

No. No. Both relevant.

Indeed, they are very relevant. As far as I can tell, Eliezer's job description is "blogger". He is, indeed, brilliant at it, but I haven't seen evidence that he's done anything else of value. As for TDT, everyone here ought to remember the rule for academic research: if it's not published, it doesn't count.

Which is why I don't fault anyone for accusing Eliezer of not having done anything - because they're right.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 05 December 2009 08:04:10AM 3 points [-]

As for TDT, everyone here ought to remember the rule for academic research: if it's not published, it doesn't count.

It takes some hard work against my natural inclinations not to walk out on academia entirely so long as they have a rule like that. By nature and personality I have an extremely low tolerance for tribal inbreeding rules and dimwit status games. If it were anything other than Academia - a corporation with the same rule about its own internal journals, say - I would just shrug and write them off as idiots whose elaborate little games I have no interest in playing, and go off to find someone else who can scrape up some interest in reality rather than appearances.

As it stands I'm happy to see the non-direct-FAI-research end of SIAI trying to publish papers, but it seems to me that the direct-FAI-research end should have a pretty hard-and-fast rule of not wasting time and in dealing with reality rather than appearances. That sort of thing isn't a one-off decision rule, it's a lifestyle and a habit of thinking. For myself I'm not sure that I lose much from dealing only with academics who are willing to lower themselves to discuss a blog post. Sure, I must be losing something that I would gain if I magically by surgical intervention gained a PhD. Sure, there are people who are in fact smart who won't in fact deal with me. But there are other smart people who are more relaxed and more grounded than that, so why not just deal with them instead?

Comment author: wedrifid 05 December 2009 11:14:18AM 5 points [-]

I empathize rather strongly with the position you are taking here. Even so, I am very much looking forward to seeing (for example) a published TDT. I don't particularly care whether it is published in blog format or in a journal. There are reasons for doing so that are not status related.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 05 December 2009 12:57:43PM * 7 points [-]

There is no such clear-cut general rule wherein you are required to publish your results in a special ritual form to make an impact (in most cases, it's merely a bureaucratic formality in the funding/hiring process; history abounds with informally-distributed works that were built upon, it's just that in most cases good works are also published, 'cause "why not?"). There is a simple need for a clear self-contained explanation that it's possible to understand for other people, without devoting a special research project to figuring out what you meant and hunting down notes on the margins. The same reason you are writing a book. Once a good explanation is prepared, there are usually ways to also "publish" it.

Comment author: Wei_Dai 05 December 2009 07:56:34PM 12 points [-]

I agree with Nesov and can offer a personal example here. I have a crypto design that was only "published" to a mailing list and on my homepage, and it still got eighty-some citations according to Google Scholar.

Also, just because you (Eliezer) don't like playing status games, doesn't mean it's not rational to play them. I hate status games too, but I can get away with ignoring them since I can work on things that interest me without needing external funding. Your plans, on the other hand, depend on donors, and most potential donors aren't AI or decision theory experts. What do they have to go on except status? What Nesov calls "a bureaucratic formality in the funding/hiring process" is actually a human approximation to group rationality, I think.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 05 December 2009 08:22:48PM 0 points [-]

That's fair enough. In which case I can only answer that some things are higher-priority than others, which is why I'm writing that book and not a TDT paper.

Comment author: CronoDAS 05 December 2009 09:19:18AM * 5 points [-]

What's the difference between an real artist and a poseur?

Artists ship.

And you, Eliezer Yudkowsky, haven't shipped.

Until you publish something, you haven't really done anything. Your "timeless decision theory", for example, isn't even published on a web page. It's vaporware. Until you actually write down your ideas, you really can't call yourself a scientist, any more than someone who hasn't published a story can claim the title of author. If you get hit by a bus tomorrow, what great work will you have left behind? Is there something in the SIAI vault that I don't know about, or is it all locked up in that head of yours where nobody can get to it? I don't expect you to magically produce a FAI out of your hat, but any advance that isn't written down might as well not exist, for all the good it will do.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 05 December 2009 01:31:57PM 0 points [-]

Eh? TDT was explained in enough detail for Dai and some others to get it. It might not make sense to a lay audience but any philosophically competent fellow who's read the referenced books could reconstruct TDT out of Ingredients of Timeless Decision Theory.

I don't understand your concept of "shipping". There are many things I want to understand, some I understand already, a few of those that I've gone so far as to explain for the sake of people who are actually interested in them, and anything beyond that falls under the heading of PR and publicity.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I find that no matter how much I do, the people who previously told me that I hadn't yet achieved it, find something else that I haven't yet achieved to focus on. First it's "show you can invent something new", and then when you invent it, "show you can get it published in a journal", and if my priority schedule ever gets to the point I can do that, I have no doubt that the same sort of people will turn around and say "Anyone can publish a paper, where are the prominent scholars who support you?" and after that they will say "Does the whole field agree with you?" I have no personal taste for any part of this endless sequence except the part where I actually figure something out. TDT is rare in that I can talk about it openly and it looks like other people are actually making progress on it.

Comment author: Wei_Dai 06 December 2009 08:21:32PM 9 points [-]

TDT was explained in enough detail for Dai and some others to get it.

It's explained in enough detail for me to get an intuitive understanding of it, and to obtain some inspirations and research ideas to follow up. But it's not enough for me to try to find flaws in it. I think that should be the standard of detail in scientific publication: the description must be detailed enough that if the described idea or research were to have a flaw, then a reader would be able to find it from the description.

It might not make sense to a lay audience but any philosophically competent fellow who's read the referenced books could reconstruct TDT out of Ingredients of Timeless Decision Theory.

Ok, but what if TDT is flawed? In that case, whoever is trying to reconstruct TDT would just get stuck somewhere before they got to a coherent theory, unless they recreated the same flaw by coincidence. If they do get stuck, how can they know or convince you that it's your fault, and not theirs? Unless they have super high motivation and trust in you, they'll just give up and do something else, or never attempt the reconstruction in the first place.

continue this thread »

Comment author: CronoDAS 05 December 2009 07:33:12PM 2 points [-]

Eh? TDT was explained in enough detail for Dai and some others to get it. It might not make sense to a lay audience but any philosophically competent fellow who's read the referenced books could reconstruct TDT out of Ingredients of Timeless Decision Theory.

All right, then.

Comment author: mormon2 comment score below threshold [+] (0 children)

Comment author: mormon2 05 December 2009 09:11:27PM -3 points [-]

"Not to put too fine a point on it, but I find that no matter how much I do, the people who previously told me that I hadn't yet achieved it, find something else that I haven't yet achieved to focus on."

Such is the price of being an innovator or claiming innovation...

"First it's "show you can invent something new", and then when you invent it, "show you can get it published in a journal", and if my priority schedule ever gets to the point I can do that, I have no doubt that the same sort of people will turn around and say "Anyone can publish a paper, where are the prominent scholars who support you?""

Sure, but you have not invented a decision theory using the example of TDT until you have math to back it up. Decision theory is a mathematical theory not just some philosophical ideas. What-is-more thanks to programs like Mathematica etc. there are easy ways to post equations online. For example "[Nu] Derivative[2][w][[Nu]] + 2 Derivative[1][w][[Nu]] + ArcCos[z]^2 [Nu] w[[Nu]] == 0 /; w[[Nu]] == Subscript[c, 1] GegenbauerC[[Nu], z] + Subscript[c, 2] (1/[Nu]) ChebyshevU[[Nu], z]" put this in mathematica and presto. Further the publication of the theory is necessary part of getting the theory accepted be that good or bad. Not only that but it helps in formalizing ones ideas which is positive especially when working with other people and trying to explain what you are doing.

"and after that they will say "Does the whole field agree with you?" I have no personal taste for any part of this endless sequence except the part where I actually figure something out. TDT is rare in that I can talk about it openly and it looks like other people are actually making progress on it."

There are huge areas of non-FAI specific work and people who's help would be of value. For example knowledge representation, embodiment virtual or real, and sensory stimulus recognition... Each of these will need work to make FAI practical and there are people who can help you and probably know more about those specific areas then you.

Comment author: wedrifid 05 December 2009 05:45:24AM * 1 point [-]

If EY's primary goal is to create FAI first then why is he spending most of his time blogging and working on a book on rationality?

Because LaTeX has already been done.

So if all answers being in the negative then what hope should any here hold for EY making FAI? Answer: zero, zilch, none, zip...

Zero, zilch, none and zip are not probabilities but the one I would assign is rather low. (Here is where 'shut up and do the impossible' fits in.)

PS: Is it acceptable to respond to trolls when the post is voted up to (2 - my vote)?

Comment author: mormon2 05 December 2009 08:57:14PM 0 points [-]

How am I troll? Did I not make a valid point? Have I not made other valid points? You may disagree with how I say something but that in no way labels me a troll.

The intention of my comment was to find what the hope for EYs FAI goals are based on here. I was trying to make the point with the zero, zilch idea... that the faith in EY making FAI is essentially blind faith.

Comment author: Zack_M_Davis 05 December 2009 10:52:06PM * 6 points [-]

You may disagree with how I say something but that in no way labels me a troll.

I'm not so sure. You don't seem to be being downvoted for criticizing Eliezer's strategy or sparse publication record: you got upvoted earlier, as did CronoDAS for making similar points. But the hostile and belligerent tone of many of your comments does come off as kind of, well, trollish.

Incidentally, I can't help but notice that subject and style of your writing is remarkably similar to that of DS3618. Is that just a coincidence?

Comment author: Tiredoftrolls 06 December 2009 12:45:44AM * 5 points [-]

Not to mention mormon1 and psycho.

The same complaints and vitriol about Eliezer and LW, unsupported claims of technical experience convenient to conversational gambits (CMU graduate degree with no undergrad degree, AI and DARPA experience), and support for Intelligent Design creationism.

Plus sadly false claims of being done with Less Wrong because of his contempt for its participants.

Comment author: mormon2 comment score below threshold [+] (1 child)

Comment author: wedrifid 06 December 2009 12:17:00AM 5 points [-]

The intention of my comment was to find what the hope for EYs FAI goals are based on here. I was trying to make the point with the zero, zilch idea... that the faith in EY making FAI is essentially blind faith.

I am not sure who here has faith in EY making FAI. In fact, I don't even recall EY claiming a high probability of such a success.

Comment author: Technologos 17 December 2009 06:34:01AM 4 points [-]

Agreed. As I recall, EY posted at one point that prior to thinking about existential risks and FAI, his conception of an adequate life goal was moving the Singularity up an hour. Sure doesn't sound like he anticipates single-handedly making an FAI.

At best, he will make major progress toward a framework for friendliness. And in that aspect he is rather a specialist.

Comment author: CarlShulman 17 December 2009 07:28:31AM * 3 points [-]

Agreed. I don't know anyone at SIAI or FHI so absurdly overconfident as to expect to avert existential risk that would otherwise be fatal. The relevant question is whether their efforts, or supporting efforts, do more to reduce risk than alternative uses of their time or that of supporters.

Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on Call for new SIAI Visiting Fellows, on a rolling basis - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (264)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (264)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login