= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
bentarm comments on Existential Risk and Public Relations - 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 (613)
I haven't seen examples of Yudkowsky-hatred. But I have regularly seen people ridicule him. Recalling Hanson's view that a lot human behavior is really signaling and vying for status, I interpret this ridicule as an functioning to lower Eliezer's status to compensate for what people perceive as inappropriate status grubbing on his part.
Most of the smart people who I know (including myself) perceive him as exhibiting a high degree of overconfidence in the validity of his views about the world.
This leads some of them conceptualize him as a laughingstock; as somebody who's totally oblivious and feel that the idea that we should be thinking about artificial intelligence is equally worthy of ridicule. I personally am quite uncomfortable with these attitudes, agreeing with Holden Karnofsky's comment
"I believe that there are enormous risks and upsides associated with artificial intelligence. Managing these deserves serious discussion, and it’s a shame that many laugh off such discussion."
I'm somewhat surprised that you appear not to have notice this sort of thing independently. Maybe we hang out in rather different crowds.
Yes, I think that you're right. I just picked it out as a very concrete example of a statement that could provoke a substantial negative reaction. There are other qualitatively similar things (but more mild) things that Eliezer has said that have been more widely disseminated.
Ditto.
I know of a lot of very smart people (ok, less than 10, but still, more than 1) who essentially read Eliezer's AI writings as a form of entertainment, and don't take them even slightly seriously. This is partly because of the Absurdity Heuristic, but I think it's also because of Eliezer's writing style, and statements like the one in the initial post.
I personally fall somewhere between these people and, say, someone who has spent a summer at the SIAI on the 'taking Eliezer seriously' scale - I think he (and the others) probably have a point, and I at least know that they intend to be taken seriously, but I've never gotten round to doing anything about it.
Why do they find them entertaining?
As XiXiDu says - pretty much the same reason they find Isaac Asimov entertaining.
I said the same before. It's mainly good science fiction. I'm trying to find out if there's more to it though.
Just saying this as evidence that there is a lot doubt even within the LW community.