= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
multifoliaterose comments on Should I believe what the SIAI claims? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (600)
It looks to me as though you've focused in on one of the weaker points in XiXiDu's post rather than engaging with the (logically independent) stronger points.
Gahhh! The hoard of arguments against that idea that instantly sprang to my mind (with warning bells screeching) perhaps hints at why a good argument hasn't been given to the contrary (if, in fact, it hasn't). It just seems so obvious. And I don't mean that as a criticism of you or Shane at all. Most things that we already understand well seem like they should be obvious to others. I agree that there should be a post making the arguments on that topic either here on LessWrong or on the SIAI website somewhere. (Are you sure there isn't?)
Edit: And you demonstrate here just why Eliezer (or others) should bother to answer XiXiDu's questions even if there are some weaknesses in his reasoning.
I understand your point, and agree that your conclusion is one that many smart, rational people with good general knowledge would share. Once again I concur that engaging with those X's is important, including that 'X' we're discussing here.
If I was SIAI my reasoning would be the following. First stop with the believes- believes not dichotomy and move to probabilities.
So what is the probability of a good outcome if you can't formalize friendliness before AGI? Some of them would argue infinitesimal. This is based on fast take-off winner take all type scenarios (I have a problem with this stage, but I would like it to be properly argued and that is hard).
So looking at the decision tree (under these assumptions) the only chance of a good outcome is to try to formalise FAI before AGI becomes well known. All the other options lead to extinction.
So to attack the "formalise Friendliness before AGI" position you would need to argue that the first AGIs are very unlikely to kill us all. That is the major battleground as far as I am concerned.
Agreed about what the "battleground" is, modulo one important nit: not the first AGI, but the first AGI that recursively self-improves at a high speed. (I'm pretty sure that's what you meant, but it's important to keep in mind that, e.g., a roughly human-level AGI as such is not what we need to worry about -- the point is not that intelligent computers are magically superpowerful, but that it seems dangerously likely that quickly self-improving intelligences, if they arrive, will be non-magically superpowerful.)
I don't think formalize-don't formalize should be a simple dichotomy either; friendliness can be formalized in various levels of detail, and the more details are formalized, the fewer unconstrained details there are which could be wrong in a way that kills us all.
I'd look at it the other way: I'd take it as practically certain that any superintelligence built without explicit regard to Friendliness will be unFriendly, and ask what the probability is that through sufficiently slow growth in intelligence and other mere safeguards, we manage to survive building it.
My best hope currently rests on the AGI problem being hard enough that we get uploads first.
(This is essentially the Open Thread about everything Eliezer or SIAI have ever said now, right?)
Uploading would have quite a few benefits, but I get the impression it would make us more vulnerable to whatever tools a hostile AI may possess, not less.
"So what is the probability of a good outcome if you can't formalize friendliness before AGI? Some of them would argue infinitesimal."
One problem here is the use of a circular definition of "friendliness" - that defines the concept it in terms of whether it leads to a favourable outcome. If you think "friendly" is defined in terms of whether or not the machine destroys humanity, then clearly you will think that an "unfriendly" machine would destroy the world. However, this is just a word game - which doesn't tell us anything about the actual chances of such destruction happening.
I'd start here to get an overview.
My summary would be: there are huge numbers of types of minds and motivations, so if we pick one at random from the space of minds then it likely to be contrary to our values because it will have a different sense of what is good or worthwhile. This moderately relies on the speed/singleton issue, because evolution pressure between AI might force them in the same direction as us. We would likely be out-competed before this happens though, if we rely on competition between AIs.
I think various people associated with SIAI mean different things by formalizing friendliness. I remember Vladimir Nesov means getting better than 50% probability for providing a good outcome.
Edited to add my own overview.
Better than chance? What chance?
Programmers do not operate by "picking programs at random", though.
The idea that "picking programs at random" has anything to do with the issue seems just confused to me.
You have correctly identified the area in which we do not agree.
The most relevant knowledge needed in this case is knowledge of game theory and human behaviour. They also need to know 'friendliness is a very hard problem'. They then need to ask themselves the following question:
What is likely to happen if people have the ability to create an AGI but do not have a proven mechanism for implementing friendliness? Is it:
I don't (with that phrasing). I actually suspect that the problem is too difficult to get right and far too easy to get wrong. We're probably all going to die. However, I think we're even more likely to die if some fool goes and invents a AGI before they have a proven theory of friendliness.
Those are the people, indeed. But where do the donations come from? EY seems to be using this argument against me as well. I'm just not educated, well-read or intelligent enough for any criticism. Maybe so, I acknowledged that in my post. But have I seen any pointers to how people arrive at their estimations yet? No, just the demand to read all of LW, which according to EY doesn't even deal with what I'm trying to figure out, but rather the dissolving of biases. A contradiction?
I'm inquiring about the strong claims made by the SIAI, which includes EY and LW. Why? Because they ask for my money and resources. Because they gather fanatic followers who believe into the possibility of literally going to hell. If you follow the discussion surrounding Roko's posts you'll see what I mean. And because I'm simply curious and like to discuss, besides becoming less wrong.
But if EY or someone else is going to tell me that I'm just too dumb and it doesn't matter what I do, think or donate, I can accept that. I don't expect Richard Dawkins to enlighten me about evolution either. But don't expect me to stay quiet about my insignificant personal opinion and epistemic state (as you like to call it) either! Although since I'm conveniently not neurotypical (I guess), you won't have to worry me turning into an antagonist either, simply because EY is being impolite.
SIAI position does dot require "obviously X" from a decision perspective, the opposite one does. To be so sure of something as complicated as the timeline of FAI math vs AGI development seems seriously foolish to me.
It is not a matter about being sure of it but to weigh it against what is asked for in return, other possible events of equal probability and the utility payoff from spending the resources on something else entirely.
I'm not asking the SIAI to prove "obviously X" but rather to prove the very probability of X that they are claiming it has within the larger context of possibilities.
No such proof is possible with our machinery.
=======================================================
Capa: It's the problem right there. Between the boosters and the gravity of the sun the velocity of the payload will get so great that space and time will become smeared together and everything will distort. Everything will be unquantifiable.
Kaneda: You have to come down on one side or the other. I need a decision.
Capa: It's not a decision, it's a guess. It's like flipping a coin and asking me to decide whether it will be heads or tails.
Kaneda: And?
Capa: Heads... We harvested all Earth's resources to make this payload. This is humanity's last chance... our last, best chance... Searle's argument is sound. Two last chances are better than one.
=====================================================
(Sunshine 2007)
Not being able to calculate chances does not excuse one from using their best de-biased neural machinery to make a guess at a range. IMO 50 years is reasonable (I happen to know something about the state of AI research outside of the FAI framework). I would not roll over in surprise if it's 5 years given state of certain technologies.
I'm curious, because I like to collect this sort of data: what is your median estimate?
(If you don't want to say because you don't want to defend a specific number or list off a thousand disclaimers I completely understand.)
Median 15-20 years. I'm not really an expert, but certain technologies are coming really close to modeling cognition as I understand it.
Thanks!
Well it's clear to me now that formalizing Friendliness with pen and paper is as naively impossible as it would have been for the people of ancient Babylon to actually build a tower that reached the heavens; so if resources are to be spent attempting it, then it's something that does need to be explicitly argued for.
"By focusing on excessively challenging engineering projects it seems possible that those interested in creating a positive future might actually create future problems – by delaying their projects to the point where less scrupulous rivals beat them to the prize"
What stronger points are you referring to? It seems to me XiXiDu's post has only 2 points, both of which Eliezer addressed:
"Is the SIAI evidence-based, or merely following a certain philosophy?"
Oh, is that the substantive point? How the heck was I supposed to know you were singling that out?
That one's easy: We're doing complex multi-step extrapolations argued to be from inductive generalizations themselves supported by the evidence, which can't be expected to come with experimental confirmation of the "Yes, we built an unFriendly AI and it went foom and destroyed the world" sort. This sort of thing is dangerous, but a lot of our predictions are really antipredictions and so the negations of the claims are even more questionable once you examine them.
If you have nothing valuable to say, why don't you stay away from commenting at all? Otherwise you could simply ask me what I meant to say, if something isn't clear. But those empty statements coming from you recently make me question if you've been the person that I thought you are. You cannot even guess what I am trying to ask here? Oh come on...
I was inquiring about the supportive evidence at the origin of your complex multi-step extrapolations argued to be from inductive generalizations. If there isn't any, what difference is there between writing fiction and complex multi-step extrapolations argued to be from inductive generalizations?
What you say here makes sense, sorry for not being more clear earlier. See my list of questions in my response to another one of your comments.
My point is that your evidence has to stand up to whatever estimations you come up with. My point is the missing transparency in your decision making regarding the possibility of danger posed by superhuman AI. My point is that any form of external peer review is missing and that therefore I either have to believe you or learn enough to judge all of your claims myself after reading hundreds of posts and thousands of documents to find some pieces of evidence hidden beneath. My point is that competition is necessary, that not just the SIAI should work on the relevant problems. There are many other points you seem to be missing entirely.
XiXiDu wants to know why he can trust SIAI instead of Charles Stross. Reading the MWI sequence is supposed to tell him that far more effectively than any cute little sentence I could write. The first thing I need to know is whether he read the sequence and something went wrong, or if he didn't read the sequence.
Well, you've picked the weakest of his points to answer, and I put it to you that it was clearly the weakest.
You are right of course that what does or doesn't show up in Charles Stross's writing doesn't constitute evidence in either direction -- he's a professional fiction author, he has to write for entertainment value regardless of what he may or may not know or believe about what's actually likely or unlikely to happen.
A better example would be e.g. Peter Norvig, whose credentials are vastly more impressive than yours (or, granted, than mine), and who thinks we need to get at least another couple of decades of progress under our belts before there will be any point in resuming attempts to work on AGI. (Even I'm not that pessimistic.)
If you want to argue from authority, the result of that isn't just tilted against the SIAI, it's flat out no contest.
If this means "until the theory and practice of machine learning is better developed, if you try to build an AGI using existing tools you will very probably fail" it's not unusually pessimistic at all. "An investment of $X in developing AI theory will do more to reduce the mean time to AI than $X on AGI projects using existing theory now" isn't so outlandish either. What was the context/cite?
I don't have the reference handy, but he wasn't saying let's spend 20 years of armchair thought developing AGI theory before we start writing any code (I'm sure he knows better than that), he was saying forget about AGI completely until we've got another 20 years of general technological progress under our belts.
Not general technological progress surely, but the theory and tools developed by working on particular machine learning problems and methodologies?
Those would seem likely to be helpful indeed. Better programming tools might also help, as would additional computing power (not so much because computing power is actually a limiting factor today, as because we tend to scale our intuition about available computing power to what we physically deal with on an everyday basis -- which for most of us, is a cheap desktop PC -- and we tend to flinch away from designs whose projected requirements would exceed such a cheap PC; increasing the baseline makes us less likely to flinch away from good designs).
Here too, it looks like you're focusing on a weak aspect of his post rather than engaging him. Nobody who's smart and has read your writing carefully doubts that you're uncommonly brilliant and that this gives you more credibility than the other singulatarians. But there are more substantive aspects of XiXiDu's post which you're not addressing.
Like what? Why he should believe in exponential growth? When by "exponential" he actually means "fast" and no one at SIAI actually advocates for exponentials, those being a strictly Kurzweilian obsession and not even very dangerous by our standards? When he picks MWI, of all things, to accuse us of overconfidence (not "I didn't understand that" but "I know something you don't about how to integrate the evidence on MWI, clearly you folks are overconfident")? When there's lots of little things scattered through the post like that ("I'm engaging in pluralistic ignorance based on Charles Stross's nonreaction") it doesn't make me want to plunge into engaging the many different little "substantive" parts, get back more replies along the same line, and recapitulate half of Less Wrong in the process. The first thing I need to know is whether XiXiDu did the reading and the reading failed, or did he not do the reading? If he didn't do the reading, then my answer is simply, "If you haven't done enough reading to notice that Stross isn't in our league, then of course you don't trust SIAI". That looks to me like the real issue. For substantive arguments, pick a single point and point out where the existing argument fails on it - don't throw a huge handful of small "huh?"s at me.
Castles in the air. Your claims are based on long chains of reasoning that you do not write down in a formal style. Is the probability of correctness of each link in that chain of reasoning so close to 1, that their product is also close to 1?
I can think of a couple of ways you could respond:
Yes, you are that confident in your reasoning. In that case you could explain why XiXiDu should be similarly confident, or why it's not of interest to you whether he is similarly confident.
It's not a chain of reasoning, it's a web of reasoning, and robust against certain arguments being off. If that's the case, then we lay readers might benefit if you would make more specific and relevant references to your writings depending on context, instead of encouraging people to read the whole thing before bringing criticisms.
Most of the long arguments are concerned with refuting fallacies and defeating counterarguments, which flawed reasoning will always be able to supply in infinite quantity. The key predictions, when you look at them, generally turn out to be antipredictions, and the long arguments just defeat the flawed priors that concentrate probability into anthropomorphic areas. The positive arguments are simple, only defeating complicated counterarguments is complicated.
"Fast AI" is simply "Most possible artificial minds are unlikely to run at human speed, the slow ones that never speed up will drop out of consideration, and the fast ones are what we're worried about."
"UnFriendly AI" is simply "Most possible artificial minds are unFriendly, most intuitive methods you can think of for constructing one run into flaws in your intuitions and fail."
MWI is simply "Schrodinger's equation is the simplest fit to the evidence"; there are people who think that you should do something with this equation other than taking it at face value, like arguing that gravity can't be real and so needs to be interpreted differently, and the long arguments are just there to defeat them.
The only argument I can think of that actually approaches complication is about recursive self-improvement, and even there you can say "we've got a complex web of recursive effects and they're unlikely to turn out exactly exponential with a human-sized exponent", the long arguments being devoted mainly to defeating the likes of Robin Hanson's argument for why it should be exponential with an exponent that smoothly couples to the global economy.
This should be revamped into a document introducing the sequences.
One problem I have with your argument here is that you appear to be saying that if XiXiDu doesn't agree with you, he must be stupid (the stuff about low g etc.). Do you think Robin Hanson is stupid too, since he wasn't convinced?
This is quite helpful, and suggests that what I wanted is not a lay-reader summary, but an executive summary.
I brought this up elsewhere in this thread, but the fact that quantum mechanics and gravity are not reconciled suggests that even Schrodinger's equation does not fit the evidence. The "low-energy" disclaimer one has to add is very weird, maybe weirder than any counterintuitive consequences of quantum mechanics.
It's not the Schrödinger equation alone that gives rise to decoherence and thus many-worlds. (Read Good and Real for another toy model, the "quantish" system.) The EPR experiment and Bell's inequality can be made to work on macroscopic scales, so we know that whatever mathematical object the universe will turn out to be, it's not going to go un-quantum on us again: it has the same relevant behavior as the Schrödinger equation, and accordingly MWI will be the best interpretation there as well.
Speaking of executive summaries, will you offer one for your metaethics?
"There is no intangible stuff of goodness that you can divorce from life and love and happiness in order to ask why things like that are good. They are simply what you are talking about in the first place when you talk about goodness."
And then the long arguments are about why your brain makes you think anything different.
This is less startling than your more scientific pronouncements. Are there any atheists reading this that find this (or at first found this) very counterintuitive or objectionable?
I would go further, and had the impression from somewhere that you did not go that far. Is that accurate?
I'm a cognitivist. Sentences about goodness have truth values after you translate them into being about life and happiness etc. As a general strategy, I make the queerness go away, rather than taking the queerness as a property of a thing and using it to deduce that thing does not exist; it's a confusion to resolve, not an existence to argue over.
I can do that:
Morality is a specific set of values (Or, more precisely, a specific algorithm/dynamic for judging values). Humans happen to be (for various reasons) the sort of beings that value morality as opposed to valuing, say, maximizing paperclip production. It is indeed objectively better (by which we really mean "more moral"/"the sort of thing we should do") to be moral than to be paperclipish. And indeed we should be moral, where by "should" we mean, "more moral".
(And moral, when we actually cash out what we actually mean by it seems to translate to a complicated blob of values like happiness, love, creativity, novelty, self determination, fairness, life (as in protecting theirof), etc...)
It may appear that paperclip beings and moral beings disagree about something, but not really. The paperclippers would, once they've analyzed what humans actually mean by "moral", would agree "yep, humans are more moral than us. But who cares about this morality stuff, it doesn't maximize paperclips!"
Of course, screw the desires of the paperclippers, after all, they're not actually moral. We really are objectively better (once we think carefully by what we mean by "better") than them.
(note, "does something or does something not actually do a good job of fulfilling a certain value?" is an objective question. ie, "does a particular action tend to increase the expected number of paperclips?" (on the paperclipper side) or, on our side, stuff like "does a particular action tend to save more lives, increase happiness, increase fairness, add novelty..." etc etc etc is an objective question in that we can extract specific meaning from that question and can objectively (in a way the paperclippers would agree with) judge that. It simply happens to be that we're the sorts of beings that actually care about the answer to that (as we should be), while the screwy hypothetical paperclippers are immoral and only care about paperclips.
How's that, that make sense? Or, to summarize the summary, "Morality is objective, and we humans happen to be the sorts of beings that value morality, as opposed to valuing something else instead"
Is morality actually:
If it's 1, can we say something interesting and non-trivial about the algorithm, besides the fact that it's an algorithm? In other words, everything can be viewed as an algorithm, but what's the point of viewing morality as an algorithm?
If it's 2, why do we think that two people on opposite sides of the Earth are referring to the same complicated blob of values when they say "morality"? I know the argument about the psychological unity of humankind (not enough time for significant genetic divergence), but what about cultural/memetic evolution?
I'm guessing the answer to my first question is something like, morality is an algorithm whose current "state" is a complicated blob of values like happiness, love, ... so both of my other questions ought to apply.
Wei_Dai:
You don't even have to do any cross-cultural comparisons to make such an argument. Considering the insights from modern behavioral genetics, individual differences within any single culture will suffice.
There is no reason to be at all tentative about this. There's tons of cog sci data about what people mean when they talk about morality. It varies hugely (but predictably) across cultures.
Why are you using algorithm/dynamic here instead of function or partial function? (On what space, I will ignore that issue, just as you have...) Is it supposed to be stateful? I'm not even clear what that would mean. Or is function what you mean by #2? I'm not even really clear on how these differ.
This is currently at +1. Is that from Yudkowsky?
(Edit: +2 after I vote it up.)
This makes sense in that it is coherent, but it is not obvious to me what arguments would be marshaled in its favor. (Yudkowsky's short formulations do point in the direction of their justifications.) Moreover, the very first line, "morality is a specific set of values," and even its parenthetical expansion (algorithm for judging values), seems utterly preposterous to me. The controversies between human beings about which specific sets of values are moral, at every scale large and small, are legendary beyond cliche.
It is a common thesis here that most humans would ultimately have the same moral judgments if they were in full agreement about all factual questions and were better at reasoning. In other words, human brains have a common moral architecture, and disagreements are at the level of instrumental, rather than terminal, values and result from mistaken factual beliefs and reasoning errors.
You may or may not find that convincing (you'll get to the arguments regarding that if you're reading the sequences), but assuming that is true, then "morality is a specific set of values" is correct, though vague: more precisely, it is a very complicated set of terminal values, which, in this world, happens to be embedded solely in a species of minds who are not naturally very good at rationality, leading to massive disagreement about instrumental values (though most people do not notice that it's about instrumental values).
Psy-Kosh:
It makes sense in its own terms, but it leaves the unpleasant implication that morality differs greatly between humans, at both individual and group level -- and if this leads to a conflict, asking who is right is meaningless (except insofar as everyone can reach an answer that's valid only for himself, in terms of his own morality).
So if I live in the same society with people whose morality differs from mine, and the good-fences-make-good-neighbors solution is not an option, as it often isn't, then who gets to decide whose morality gets imposed on the other side? As far as I see, the position espoused in the above comment leaves no other answer than "might is right." (Where "might" also includes more subtle ways of exercising power than sheer physical coercion, of course.)
*blinks* how did I imply that morality varies? I thought (was trying to imply) that morality is an absolute standard and that humans simply happen to be the sort of beings that care about the particular standard we call "morality". (Well, with various caveats like not being sufficiently reflective to be able to fully explicitly state our "morality algorithm", nor do we fully know all its consequences)
However, when humans and paperclippers interact, well, there will probably be some sort of fight if one doesn't end up with some sort PD cooperation or whatever. It's not that paperclippers and humans disagree on anything, it's simply, well, they value paperclips a whole lot more than lives. We're sort of stuck with having to act in a way to prevent the hypothetical them from acting on that.
(of course, the notion that most humans seem to have the same underlying core "morality algorithm", just disagreeing on the implications or such, is something to discuss, but that gets us out of executive summary territory, no?)
Your claims are only anti-predictions relative to science-fiction notions of robots as metal men.
Most possible artificial minds are neither Friendly nor unFriendly (unless you adopt such a stringent definition of mind that artificial minds are not going to exist in my lifetime or yours).
Fast AI (along with most of the other wild claims about what future technology will do, really) falls afoul of the general version of Amdahl's law. (On which topic, did you ever update your world model when you found out you were mistaken about the role of computers in chip design?)
About MWI, I agree with you completely, though I am more hesitant to berate early quantum physicists for not having found it obvious. For a possible analogy: what do you think of my resolution of the Anthropic Trilemma?
Okay, I can see how XiXiDu's post might come across that way. I think I can clarify what I think that XiXiDu is trying to get at by asking some better questions of my own.
"Near"? Where'd we say that? What's "near"? XiXiDu thinks we're Kurzweil?
What kind of evidence would you want aside from a demonstrated Singularity?
Grey goo? Huh? What's that got to do with us? Read Nanosystems by Eric Drexler or Freitas on "global ecophagy". XiXiDu thinks we're Foresight?
If this business about "evidence" isn't a demand for particular proof, then what are you looking for besides not-further-confirmed straight-line extrapolations from inductive generalizations supported by evidence?
You've claimed that in your blogging heads divlog with Scott Aaronson that you think that it's pretty obvious that there will be an AGI within the next century. As far as I know you have not offered a detailed description of the reasoning that led you to this conclusion that can be checked by others.
I see this as significant for the reasons given in my comment here.
I don't know what the situation is with SIAI's position on grey goo - I've heard people say the SIAI staff believe in nanotechnology having capabilities out of line with the beliefs of the scientific community, but they may have been misinformed. So let's forget about about questions 3 and 4.
Questions 1, 2, 5 and 6 remain.
You've shifted the question from "is SIAI on balance worth donating to" to "should I believe everything Eliezer has ever said".
The point is that grey goo is not relevant to SIAI's mission (apart from being yet another background existential risk that FAI can dissolve). "Scientific community" doesn't normally professionally study (far) future technological capabilities.
My whole point about grey goo has been, as stated, that a possible superhuman AI could use it to do really bad things. That is, I do not see how an encapsulated AI, even a superhuman AI, could pose the stated risks without the use of advanced nanotechnology. Is it going to use nukes, like Skynet? Another question related to the SIAI, regarding advanced nanotechnology, is that if without advanced nanotechnology superhuman AI is at all possible.
I'm shocked how you people misintepreted my intentions there.
Grey goo is only a potential danger in its own right because it's a way dumb machinery can grow in destructive power (you don't need to assume AI controlling it for it to be dangerous, at least so goes the story). AGI is not dumb, so it can use something more fitting to precise control than grey goo (and correspondingly more destructive and feasible).
If a superhuman AI is possible without advanced nanotechnology, a superhuman AI could just invent advanced nanotechnology and implement it.
Overall I'd feel a lot more comfortable if you just said "there's a huge amount of uncertainty as to when existential risks will strike and which ones will strike, I don't know whether or not I'm on the right track in focusing on Friendly AI or whether I'm right about when the Singularity will occur, I'm just doing the best that I can."
This is largely because of the issue that I raise here
I should emphasize that I don't think that you'd ever knowingly do something that raised existential risk, I think that you're a kind and noble spirit. But I do think I'm raising a serious issue which you've missed.
Edit: See also these comments
I am looking for the evidence in "supported by evidence". I am further trying to figure how you anticipate your beliefs to pay rent, what you anticipate to see if explosive recursive self-improvement is possible, and how that belief could be surprised by data.
If you just say, "I predict we will likely be wiped out by badly done AI.", how do you expect to update on evidence? What would constitute such evidence?
I haven't done the reading. For further explanation read this comment.
Why do you always and exclusively mention Charles Stross? I need to know if you actually read all of my post.
Because the fact that you're mentioning Charles Stross means that you need to do basic reading, not complicated reading.
To put my own spin on XiXiDu's questions: What quality or position does Charles Stross possess that should cause us to leave him out of this conversation (other than the quality 'Eliezer doesn't think he should be mentioned')?
Another vacuous statement. I expected more.