JoshuaZ comments on Should I believe what the SIAI claims? - Less Wrong

23 Post author: XiXiDu 12 August 2010 02:33PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (600)

Comments (600)

Sort By: Best

Show:

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

Comment author: JoshuaZ 12 August 2010 09:14:02PM * 7 points [-]

If you haven't read through the MWI sequence, read it. Then try to talk with your smart friends about it. You will soon learn that your smart friends and favorite SF writers are not remotely close to the rationality standards of Less Wrong, and you will no longer think it anywhere near as plausible that their differing opinion is because they know some incredible secret knowledge you don't.

I'm curious what evidence you actually have that "You will soon learn that your smart friends and favorite SF writers are not remotely close to the rationality standards of Less Wrong." As far as I can tell, LWians are on a whole more rational than the general populace, and probably more rational than most smart people. But I'd be very curious as to what evidence you have that leads to conclude that the rationality standards of LW massively exceed those of a random individual's "smart friends." Empirically, people on LW have trouble telling when they have sufficient knowledge base about topics and repeat claims that aren't true that support their pre-existing worldview (I have examples of both of these which I'll link to if asked). LWians seem to be better than general smart people at updating views when confronted with evidence and somewhat better about not falling into certain common cognitive ruts.

That said, I agree that XiXi should read the MWI sequence and am annoyed that XiXi apparently has not read the sequence before making this posting.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 12 August 2010 10:18:13PM 6 points [-]

Well, I could try to rephrase as "Below the standards of promoted, highly rated LW posts", i.e., below the standards of the LW corpus, but what I actually meant there (though indeed I failed to say it) was "the standards I hold myself to when writing posts on LW", i.e., what XiXiDu is trying to compare to Charles Stross.

Comment author: CronoDAS 14 August 2010 09:35:40AM * 2 points [-]

Below the standards of promoted, highly rated LW posts

seems to be different than

our smart friends and favorite SF writers are not remotely close to the rationality standards of Less Wrong

because we do a lot of armchair speculating in comment threads about things on which the "rational" position to take is far from clear - and, furthermore, just because someone isn't trying to present a rational argument for their position at any given moment doesn't mean that they can't.

Comment deleted 13 August 2010 02:31:37PM [+] (15 children)

Comment author: jimrandomh 13 August 2010 02:36:34PM 1 point [-]

What subsequent conclusions are based on MWI?

Comment author: XiXiDu 13 August 2010 03:18:01PM 1 point [-]

Check my comment here. More details would hint at the banned content.

I never said EY or the SIAI based any conclusions on it. It was, as I frequently said, an example to elucidate what I'm talking about when saying that I cannot fathom the origin of some of the assertions made here as they appear to me to be based on other conclusions that are not yet tested themselves.

Comment author: jimrandomh 13 August 2010 04:24:55PM 2 points [-]

What the hell? That link doesn't contain any conclusions based on MWI - in fact, it doesn't seem to contain any conclusions at all, just a bunch of questions. If you mean that MWI is based on unfounded conclusions (rather than that other conclusions are based on MWI), then that's a claim that you really shouldn't be making if you haven't read the MWI sequence.

I see no connection whatsoever to the banned content, either in the topic of MWI or in the comment you linked to. This is a bizarre non-sequitur, and as someone who wants to avoid thinking about that topic, I do not appreciate it. (If you do see a connection, explain only by private message, please. But I'd rather you just let it drop.)

Comment author: XiXiDu 13 August 2010 04:37:54PM * -2 points [-]

just a bunch of questions.

My post was intended to be asking questions, not making arguments. Obviously you haven't read the banned content.

You seem not to understand my primary question that I tried to highlight by the MWI analogy. MWI is a founded conclusion but you shouldn't use it to make further conclusions based on it. That is, a conclusion first has to yield a new hypothesis that makes predictions. Once you got new data, something that makes a difference, you can go from there and hypothesize that you can influence causally disconnected parts of the multiverse or that it would be a good idea tossing a quantum coin to make key decisions.

After all it was probably a bad decisions to use that example. All you have to do is to substitute MWI with AGI. AGI is, though I'm not sure, a founded conclusion. But taking that conclusion and running with it building a huge framework of further conclusions around it is in my opinion questionable. First this conclusion has to yield marginal evidence of its feasibility, then you are able to create a further hypothesis engaged with further consequences.

Comment author: jimrandomh 13 August 2010 05:10:17PM * 2 points [-]

I do not appreciate being told that I "obviously" have not read something that I have, in fact, read. And if you were keeping track, I have previously sent you private messages correcting your misconceptions on that topic, so you should have known that. And now that I've hinted at why you think it's connected to MWI, I can see that that's just another misconception.

Your tone is antagonistic and I had to restrain myself from saying some very hurtful things that I would've regretted. You need to take a step back and think about what you're doing here, before you burn any more social bridges.

EDIT: Argh, restraint fail. That's what the two deleted comments below this are.

Comment author: XiXiDu 13 August 2010 05:45:50PM 4 points [-]

Your tone is antagonistic...

Is it, and that of EY? Are you telling him the same? Check this comment and tell me again that I am antagonistic.

If I come over as such, I'm sorry. I'm a bit stressed writing so many comments accusing me of trying to damage this movement or making false arguments when all I did was indeed trying to inquire about some problems I have, asking questions.

Comment author: jimrandomh 13 August 2010 07:45:27PM 4 points [-]

I think part of the reason this went over badly is that in the US, there is a well-known and widely hated talk show host named Glenn Beck whose favorite rhetorical trick is to disguise attacks as questions, saying things like "Is it really true that so-and-so eats babies?", repeating it enough times that his audience comes to believe that person eats babies, and then defending his accusations by saying "I'm just asking questions". So some of us, having been exposed to that in the past, see questions and rhetoric mixed a certain way, subconsciously pattern-match against that, and get angry.

Comment author: wedrifid 13 August 2010 06:36:46PM 4 points [-]

If I come over as such, I'm sorry. I'm a bit stressed writing so many comments accusing me of trying to damage this movement or making false arguments when all I did was indeed trying to inquire about some problems I have, asking questions.

I did get the impression that some took your questions as purely rhetorical, soldiers fighting against the credibility of SIAI. I took you as someone hoping to be convinced but with a responsible level of wariness.

Comment author: HughRistik 13 August 2010 06:45:50PM 8 points [-]

I did get the impression that some took your questions as purely rhetorical, soldiers fighting against the credibility of SIAI. I took you as someone hoping to be convinced but with a responsible level of wariness.

That was my impression, also. As a result, I found many elements of the responses to XiXiDu to be disappointing. While there were a few errors in his post (e.g. attributing Kurweil views to SIAI), in general it should have been taken as an opportunity to clarify and throw down some useful links, rather than treat XiXiDu (who is also an SIAI donor!) as a low-g interloper.

Comment deleted 13 August 2010 05:17:19PM [+] (5 children)

JoshuaZ comments on Should I believe what the SIAI claims? - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (600)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (600)

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