Will_Newsome comments on Intellectual Hipsters and Meta-Contrarianism - Less Wrong

147 Post author: Yvain 13 September 2010 09:36PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (323)

Tags: signaling

Comments (323)

Sort By: Best

Show:

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

Comment author: Will_Newsome 01 October 2010 07:30:58PM * 8 points [-]

FWIW, I don't see what I am saying as particularly "contrarian". A lot of people would be pretty sceptical about the end of the world being nigh - or the idea that a bug might take over the world - or the idea that a bunch of saintly programmers will be the ones to save us all. Maybe contrary to the ideas of the true believers - if that is what you mean.

Right, I said metacontrarian. Although most LW people seem SIAI-agnostic, a lot of the most vocal and most experienced posters are pro-SIAI or SIAI-related, so LW comes across as having a generally pro-SIAI attitude, which is a traditionally contrarian attitude. Thus going against the contrarian status quo is metacontrarian.

You encourage me to speculate about the motives of the individuals involved. While that might be fun, it doesn't seem to matter much - the SIAI itself is evidently behaving as though it wants dollars, attention, and manpower - to help it meet its aims.

I'm confused. Anyone trying to accomplish anything is going to try to get dollars, attention, and manpower. I'm confused as to how this is relevant to the merit of SIAI's purpose. SIAI's never claimed to be fundamentally opposed to having resources. Can you expand on this?

I hope I don't come across as thinking "the worst" about those involved. I expect they are all very nice and sincere. By way of comparison, not all cults have deliberately exploitative ringleaders.

What makes that comparison spring to mind? Everyone is incredibly critical of Eliezer, probably much more so than he deserves, because everyone is racing to be first to establish their non-cult-victim status. Everyone at SIAI has different beliefs about the relative merits of different strategies for successful FAI development. That isn't a good thing -- fractured strategy is never good -- but it is evidence against cultishness. SIAI grounds its predictions in clear and careful epistemology. SIAI publishes in academic journals, attends scientific conferences, and hosts the Singularity Summit, where tons of prominent high status folk show up to speak about Singularity-related issues. Why is cult your choice of reference class? It is no more a cult than a typical global warming awareness organization. It's just that 'science fiction' is a low status literary genre in modern liberal society.

Comment author: ata 02 October 2010 06:16:37PM 11 points [-]

Everyone is incredibly critical of Eliezer, probably much more so than he deserves, because everyone is racing to be first to establish their non-cult-victim status.

I don't know about anybody else, but I am somewhat disturbed by Eliezer's persistent use of hyphens in place of em dashes, and am very concerned that it could be hurting SIAI's image.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 02 October 2010 07:00:35PM * 6 points [-]

And I say the same about his use of double spacing. It's an outdated and unprofessional practice. In fact, Anna Salamon and Louie Helm are 2 other SIAI folk that engage in this abysmal writing style, and for that reason I've often been tempted to write them off entirely. They're obviously not cognizant of the writing style of modern academic thinkers. The implications are obvious.

Comment author: wedrifid 02 October 2010 04:24:51AM 3 points [-]

Everyone is incredibly critical of Eliezer, probably much more so than he deserves, because everyone is racing to be first to establish their non-cult-victim status.

Another reason that I suspect is more important than trying to signal non-cult-victim status is that people who do want to be considered part of the cult believe that the cause is important and believe that Eliezer's mistakes could destroy the world (for example).

Comment author: timtyler 01 October 2010 08:00:40PM * 0 points [-]

Anyone trying to accomplish anything is going to try to get dollars, attention, and manpower. I'm confused as to how this is relevant to the merit of SIAI's purpose.

To recap, the SIAI is funded by donations from those who think that they will help prevent the end of the world at the hands of intelligent machines. For this pitch to work, the world must be at risk - in order for them to be able to save it. The SIAI face some resistance over this point, and these days, much of their output is oriented towards convincing others that these may be the end days. Also there will be a selection bias, with those most convinced of a high p(DOOM) most likely to be involved. Like I said, not necessarily the type of organisation one would want to approach if seeking the facts of the matter.

You pretend to fail to see connections between the SIAI and an END OF THE WORLD cult - but it isn't a terribly convincing act.

For the connections, see here. For protesting too much, see You're calling who a cult leader?

Comment author: Will_Newsome 01 October 2010 09:17:56PM 6 points [-]

You pretend to fail to see connections between the SIAI and an END OF THE WORLD cult - but it isn't a terribly convincing act.

No, I see it, look further, and find the model lacking in explanatory power. It selectively leaves out all kinds of useful information that I can use to control my anticipations.

Hmuh, I guess we won't be able to make progress, 'cuz I pretty much wholeheartedly agree with Vladimir when he says:

This whole "outside view" methodology, where you insist on arguing from ignorance even where you have additional knowledge, is insane (outside of avoiding the specific biases such as planning fallacy induced by making additional detail available to your mind, where you indirectly benefit from basing your decision on ignorance).

and Nick Tarleton when he says:

We all already know about this pattern match. Its reiteration is boring and detracts from the conversation.

Comment author: timtyler comment score below threshold [+] (34 children)

Comment author: pjeby 02 October 2010 03:41:58AM 12 points [-]

all of their predictions of the end of the world were complete failures.

If they weren't, we wouldn't be here to see the failure.

It therefore seems to me that using this to "disprove" an end-of-the-world claim makes as much sense as someone trying to support a theory by saying, "They laughed at Galileo, too!"

IOW, you are simply placing the prediction in a certain outside-view class, without any particular justification. You could just as easily put SIAI claims in the class of "predictions of disaster that were averted by hard work", and with equal justification. (i.e., none that you've given!)

[Note: this comment is neither pro-SIAI nor anti-SIAI, nor any comment on the probability of their claims being in any particular class. I'm merely anti-arguments-that-are-information-free. ;-) ]

Comment author: wedrifid 02 October 2010 04:31:39AM 4 points [-]

I'm merely anti-arguments-that-are-information-free.

The argument is not information free. It is just lower on information than implied. If people had never previously made predictions of disaster and everything else was equal then that tells us a different thing than if humans predicted disaster every day. This is even after considering selection effects. I believe this applies somewhat even considering the possibility of dust.

Comment author: timtyler 02 October 2010 11:38:19AM * 1 point [-]

Uh, it wasn't given as an "argument" in the first place. Evidence which does more strongly relate to p(DOOM) includes the extent to which we look back and see the ashes of previous failed technological civilisations, and past major mishaps. I go into all this in my DOOM video.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 02 October 2010 03:20:08AM * 10 points [-]

No, wait, there's still something I just don't understand. In a lot of your comments it seems you do a good job of analyzing the responses of 'normal people' to existential risks: they're really more interested in lipstick, food, and sex, et cetera. And I'm with you there, evolution hasn't hardwired us with a 'care about low probabilities of catastrophe' desire; the problem wasn't really relevant in the EEA, relatively speaking.

But then it seems like you turn around and do this weird 'ought-from-is' operation from evolution and 'normal people' to how you should engage in epistemic rationality, and that's where I completely lose you. It's like you're using two separate but to me equally crazy ought-from-is heuristics. The first goes like 'Evolution didn't hard code me with a desire to save the world, I guess I don't actually really want to save the world then.' And the second one is weirder and goes more like 'Oh, well, evolution didn't directly code good epistemology into my brain, it just gave me this comparatively horrible analogical reasoning module; I guess I don't really want good epistemic rationality then'.

It ends up looking like you're using some sort of insane bizarre sister of the outside view that no one can relate with.

It's like you're perfectly describing the errors in most peoples' thinking but then at the end right when you should say "Haha, those fools", you instead completely swerve and endorse the errors, then righteously champion them for (evolutionary psychological?) reasons no one can understand.

Can you help me understand?

Comment author: timtyler 02 October 2010 11:29:00AM * 0 points [-]

"'Oh, well, evolution didn't directly code good epistemology into my brain, it just gave me this comparatively horrible analogical reasoning module; I guess I don't really want good epistemic rationality then'."

...looks like it bears very little resemblance to anything I have ever said. I don't know where you are getting it from.

Perhaps it is to do with the idea that not caring about THE END OF THE WORLD is normally a rational action for a typical gene-propagating agent.

Such agents should normally be concerned with having more babies than their neighbours do - and should not indulge in much paranoia about THE END OF THE WORLD. That is not sticking with poor quality cognition, it is often the correct thing to do for an agent with those aims.

If p(DOOM) gets really large, the correct strategy might change. If it turns into a collective action problem with punishment for free riders, the correct strategy might change. However, often THE END OF THE WORLD can be rationally perceived to be someone else's problem. Expending resources fighting DOOM usually just means you get gradually squeezed out of the gene pool.

The DOOM enthusiasts typically base their arguments on utilitarianism. A biologist's perspective on that is that it is sometimes an attempt to signal unselfishness - albeit usually a rather unbelievable one - and sometimes an attempt to manipulate others into parting withe their cash.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 02 October 2010 06:34:11PM 2 points [-]

...looks like it bears very little resemblance to anything I have ever said. I don't know where you are getting it from.

Looking back I think I read more into your comments than was really there; I apologize.

Such agents should normally be concerned with having more babies than their neighbours do - and should not indulge in much paranoia about THE END OF THE WORLD. That is not sticking with poor quality cognition, it is often the correct thing to do for an agent with those aims.

I agree here. The debate is over whether or not the current situation is normal.

However, often THE END OF THE WORLD can be rationally perceived to be someone else's problem.

Tentatively agreed. Normally, even if nanotech's gonna kill everyone, you're not able to do much about it anyway. But I'm not sure why you bring up "Expending resources fighting DOOM usually just means you get gradually squeezed out of the gene pool." when most people aren't at all trying to optimize the amount of copies of their genes in the gene pool.

The DOOM enthusiasts typically base their arguments on utilitarianism. A biologist's perspective on that is that it is sometimes an attempt to signal unselfishness - albeit usually a rather unbelievable one - and sometimes an attempt to manipulate others into parting withe their cash.

Generally this is true, especially before science was around to make such meme pushing low status. But it's also very true of global warming paranoia, which is high status even among intellectuals for some reason. (I should probably try to figure out why.) I readily admit that certain values of outside view will jump from that to 'and so all possible DOOM-pushing groups are just trying to signal altruism or swindle people' -- but rationality should help you win, and a sufficiently good rationalist should trust themselves to try and beat the outside view here.

So maybe instead of saying 'poor epistemology' I should say 'odd emphasis on outside view when generally people trust their epistemology better than that beyond a certain point of perceived rationality in themselves'.

Comment author: CarlShulman 02 October 2010 10:17:19AM 5 points [-]

The primary thing I find objectionable about your commenting on this subject is the persistent violation of ordinary LW etiquette, e.g. by REPEATEDLY SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS and using ad hominem insults, e.g. "groupies."

Comment author: timtyler 02 October 2010 11:53:52AM * -1 points [-]

I'm sorry to hear about your issues with my writing style :-(

I have been consistently capitalising DOOM - and a few related terms - for quite a while. I believe these terms deserve special treatment - in accordance with how important everybody says they are - and ALL-CAPS is the most portable form of emphasis across multiple sites and environments. For the intended pronunciation of phrases like DOOM, SOON, see my DOOM video. It is not shouting. I rate the effect as having net positive value in the context of the intended message - and will put up with your gripes about it.

As for "groupies" - that does seem like an apt term to me. There is the charismatic leader - and then there is his fan base - which seems to have a substantial element of young lads. Few other terms pin down the intended meaning as neatly. I suppose I could have said "young fan base" - if I was trying harder to avoid the possibility of causing offense. Alas, I am poorly motivated to bother with such things. Most of the "insiders" are probably going to hate me anyway - because of my message - and the "us" and "them" tribal mentality.

Did you similarly give Yudkowsky a public ticking-off when he recently delved into the realm of BOLD ALL CAPS combined with ad-hominen insults? His emphasis extended to whole paragraphs - and his insults were considerably more personal - as I recall. Or am I getting special treatment?

Comment author: wedrifid 02 October 2010 01:48:16PM * 6 points [-]

I have been consistently capitalising DOOM - and a few related terms - for quite a while. I believe these terms deserve special treatment - in accordance with how important everybody says they are - and all-caps is the most portable form of emphasis across multiple sites and environments.

May I suggest as a matter of style that "Doom" more accurately represents your intended meaning of specific treatment and usage as a noun that isn't just a description? Since ALL CAPS has the interpretation of mere shouting you fail to communicate your meaning effectively if you use all caps instead of Title Case in this instance. Consider 'End Of The World' as a superior option.

Did you similarly give Yudkowsky a public ticking-off when he recently delved into the realm of BOLD ALL CAPS combined with ad-hominen insults? His emphasis extended to whole paragraphs - and his insults were considerably more personal - as I recall. Or am I getting special treatment?

Let's be honest. If we're going to consider that incident as an admissible tu quoque to any Yudkowskian then we could justify just about any instance of obnoxious social behaviour thereby. I didn't object to your comments here simply because I didn't consider them out of line on their own merits. I would have no qualms about criticising actual bad behaviour just because Eliezer acted like a douche.

Mind you I am not CarlShuman and the relevance of hypocrisy to Carl's attempt of a status slap is far greater than if it was an attempt by me. Even so you could replace "Or am I getting special treatment?" with "Or are you giving me special treatment?" and so reduce the extent that you signal that it is ok to alienate or marginalise you.

Comment author: timtyler comment score below threshold [+] (3 children)

Comment author: CarlShulman 02 October 2010 02:26:21PM * 5 points [-]

You ignored the word 'repetitive.' As you say, you have a continuing policy of carelessness towards causing offense, i.e. rudeness. And no, I don't think that the comment you mention was appropriate either (versus off-LW communication), but given that it was deleted I didn't see reason to make a further post about it elsewhere. Here are some recent comment threads in which I called out Eliezer and others for ad hominem attacks.

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

Comment author: Will_Newsome 02 October 2010 02:40:58AM 1 point [-]

I don't think it's that. I think it's just annoyance at perceived persistently bad epistemology in people making the comparison over and over again as if each iteration presented novel predictions with which to constrain anticipation.

Comment author: timtyler 02 October 2010 01:03:42PM * 0 points [-]

If there really is "bad epistemology", feel free to show where.

There really is an analogy between the SIAI and various THE END OF THE WORLD cults - as I previously spelled out here.

You might like to insinuate that I am reading more into the analogy than it deserves - but basically, you don't have any case there that I can detect.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 02 October 2010 05:47:17PM -1 points [-]

There really is an analogy between the SIAI and various THE END OF THE WORLD cults - as I previously spelled out here.

Also, FOOM rhymes with DOOM. There!

Comment author: Perplexed 02 October 2010 08:09:55PM * 4 points [-]

Tyler: If there really is "bad epistemology", feel free to show where.

Nesov: Also, FOOM rhymes with DOOM. There!

And this response was upvoted ... why? This is supposed to be a site where rational discourse is promoted, not a place like Pharyngula or talk.origins where folks who disagree with the local collective worldview get mocked by insiders who then congratulate each other on their cleverness.

Comment author: timtyler 03 October 2010 12:59:16PM * 2 points [-]

I voted it up. It was short, neat, and made several points.

Probably the main claim is that that the relationship between the SIAI and previous END OF THE WORLD outfits is a meaningless surface resemblance.

My take of the issue is that DOOM is - in part - a contagious mind-virus, with ancient roots - which certain "vulnerable" people are inclined to spread around - regardless of whether it makes much sense or not.

With the rise of modern DOOM "outfits", we need to understand the sociological and memetic aspects of these things all the more:

Will we see more cases of "DOOM exploitation" - from those out to convert fear of the imminent end into power, wealth, fame or sex?
Will a paranoid society take steps to avoid the risks? Will it freeze like a rabbit in the headlights? Or will it result in more looting and rape cases?
What is the typical life trajectory of those who get involved with these outfits? Do they go on to become productive members of society? Or do they wind up having nightmares about THE END OF THE WORLD - while neglecting their interpersonal relationships and personal hygene - unless their friends and family stage an "intervention"?

...and so on.

Rational agents should understand the extent to which they are infected by contagious mind viruses - that spread for their own benefit and without concern for the welfare of their hosts. DOOM definitely has the form of such a virus. The issue as I see it is: how much of the observed phenomenon of the of modern-day DOOM "outfits" does it explain?

To study this whole issue, previous doomsday cults seem like obvious and highly-relevant data points to me. In some cases their DOOM was evidently a complete fabrication. They provide pure examples of fake DOOM - exactly the type of material a sociologist would need to understand that aspect of the DOOM-mongering phenomeon.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 02 October 2010 08:16:57PM 0 points [-]

In the case of Tim in particular, I'm way past that.

Comment author: Perplexed 02 October 2010 08:36:55PM 4 points [-]

"Way past that" meaning "so exasperated with Tim that rational discourse seems just not worth it"? Hey, I can sympathize. Been there, done that.

But still, it annoys me when people are attacked by mocking something that they didn't say, but that their caricature should have said (in a more amusing branch of reality).

It annoys me more when that behavior is applauded.

And it strikes me as deeply ironic when it happens here.

continue this thread »

Comment author: Will_Newsome 03 October 2010 04:53:13AM 1 point [-]

I agree that it's annoying when people are mocked for saying something they didn't say. But Nesov was actually making an implicit argument here, not just having fun: he was pointing out that timtyler's analogies tend to be surface-level and insubstantive. The kind of thing that I've seen on Pharyngula are instead unjustified ad hominem attacks that don't shed any light on possible flaws in the poster's arguments. That said, I think Nesov's comment was flirting with the line.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 02 October 2010 06:23:38PM 1 point [-]

Everyone knows the analogy exists. It's just a matter of looking at the details to see if that has any bearing on whether or not SIAI is a useful organization or not.

Comment author: timtyler 07 October 2010 01:45:28PM * -1 points [-]

You asked: "What makes that comparison spring to mind?" when I mentioned cults.

Hopefully, you now have your answer - for one thing, they are like an END OF THE WORLD cult - in that they use fear of THE END OF THE WORLD as a publicity and marketing tool.

Such marketing has a long tradition behind it - e.g see the Daisy Ad.

Comment author: wedrifid 02 October 2010 01:58:23AM 1 point [-]

No, I see it, look further, and find the model lacking in explanatory power. It selectively leaves out all kinds of useful information that I can use to control my anticipations.

"This one is right" for example. ;)

Comment deleted 02 October 2010 04:25:03AM [-]

Comment author: timtyler 02 October 2010 12:17:54PM * 0 points [-]

I didn't say anyone was "racing to be first to establish their non-cult-victim status" - but it is certainly a curious image! [deleted parent comment was a dupe].

Comment author: wedrifid 02 October 2010 01:25:43PM 0 points [-]

Oops, connection troubles then missed.

Will_Newsome comments on Intellectual Hipsters and Meta-Contrarianism - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (323)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (323)

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