XiXiDu comments on Goals for which Less Wrong does (and doesn't) help - Less Wrong

57 Post author: AnnaSalamon 18 November 2010 10:37PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (101)

Comments (101)

Sort By: Best

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

Comment author: multifoliaterose 19 November 2010 05:29:56PM * 10 points [-]

My impression is that XiXiDu is curious and that what you're frustrated by has more to do with his difficulty expressing himself than with closed-mindedness on his part. Note that he compiled a highly upvoted list of references and resources for Less Wrong - I read this as evidence that he's interested in Less Wrong's mission and think that his comments should be read more charitably.

I'll try to recast what I think he's trying to say in clearer terms sometime over the next few days

Comment deleted 19 November 2010 08:37:14PM * [-]

Comment author: multifoliaterose 20 November 2010 07:27:02AM * 8 points [-]

Though there are many brilliant people within academia, there is also shortsightedness and group-think within academia which could have led the academic establishment to ignore important issues concerning safety of advanced future technologies.
I've seen very little (if anything) in the way of careful rebuttals of SIAI's views from the academic establishment. As such, I don't think that there's strong evidence against SIAI's claims. At the same time, I have the impression that SIAI has not done enough to solicit feedback from the academic establishment.
John Baez will be posting an interview with Eliezer sometime soon. It should be informative to see the back and forth between the two of them.
Concerning the apparent group think on Less Wrong: something relevant that I've learned over the past few months is that some of the vocal SIAI supporters on LW express views that are quite unrepresentative of those of the SIAI staff. I initially misjudged SIAI on account of past unawareness of this point.
I believe that if you're going to express doubts and/or criticism about LW and/or SIAI you should take the time and energy to express these carefully and diplomatically. Expressing unclear or inflammatory doubts and/or criticism is conducive to being rejected out of hand. I agree with Anna's comment here.

Comment author: XiXiDu 20 November 2010 10:11:58AM 2 points [-]

John Baez will be posting an interview with Eliezer sometime soon. It should be informative to see the back and forth between the two of them.

Wow, that's cool! They read my mind :-)

Comment author: David_Gerard 19 November 2010 09:35:52PM * 3 points [-]

Even Eliezer Yudkowsky doesn't believe he's the smartest person alive. He's the founder of the site and set its tone early, but that's not the same thing.

Finding people smarter than oneself is essential to making oneself more effective and stretching one's abilities and goals.

For an example I'm closely familiar with: I think one of Jimmy Wales' great personal achievements with Wikipedia, as an impressively smart fellow himself, is that he discovered an extremely efficient mechanism for gathering around him people who made him feel really dumb by comparison. He'd be first to admit that a lot of those he's gathered around him outshine him.

Getting smarter people than yourself to sign up for your goals is, I suspect, one marker of success in selecting a good goal.

Comment deleted 20 November 2010 10:22:36AM [-]

Comment author: multifoliaterose 20 November 2010 03:52:18PM 3 points [-]

But it's getting better.

I agree; the average quality of your comments and posts has been increasing with time and I commend you for this.

When I read who multifoliaterose is I wanted to sink into the ground for that I even dare to bother you people with my gibberish.

This statement carries the connotation that I'm very important. At present I don't think that there's solid evidence in this direction. In any case; no need to feel self-conscious about taking my time, I'm happy to make your acquaintance and engage with you.

Comment author: timtyler comment score below threshold [+] (14 children)

Comment author: Perplexed 21 November 2010 05:06:14PM 5 points [-]

If someone tells you they are trying to save the planet, you should normally treat that with considerable scepticism.

Surely the skepticism should be directed toward the question of whether their recipe actually does save the world, rather than against their motivation. I don't think that an analysis of motivations for something like this even begins to pay any rent.

Comment author: timtyler 21 November 2010 06:17:07PM * 1 point [-]

For me, this is a standard technique. Whenever someone tells me how altruistic they are or have been, I try and figure out which replicators are likely to be involved in the display. It often makes a difference whether someone's brain has been hijacked by memes - whether they are signalling their status to prospective business partners, their wealth to prospective mates - or whatever.

For example, if they are attempting to infect me with the same memes that have hijacked their own brain, my memetic immune system is activated - whereas if they are trying to convince people what a fine individual they are, my reaction is different.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 20 November 2010 02:03:45PM * 2 points [-]

What you said seems fine, but not the reason why you chose to say it in this context, the implied argument. The form of expression makes it hard to argue with. Say it out loud.

Comment author: timtyler 20 November 2010 02:18:54PM * -1 points [-]

There is more from me on the topic in my "DOOM!" video. Spoken out loud, nontheless ;-)

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 20 November 2010 02:38:54PM 1 point [-]

This doesn't address the problem with that particular comment. What you implied is well-known, the problem I pointed out was not that it's hard to figure out, but that you protected your argument in a weasely form of expression.

Comment author: timtyler 20 November 2010 02:50:01PM 0 points [-]

It sounds as though you would like to criticise an argument that you think I am implicitly making - but since I never actually made the argument, that gives you an amorphous surface to attack. I don't plan to do anything to assist with that matter just now - other priorities seem more pressing.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 20 November 2010 02:55:02PM * 1 point [-]

It sounds as though you would like to criticise an argument that you think I am implicitly making - but since I never actually made the argument, that gives you an amorphous surface to attack. I don't plan to do anything to assist with that matter just now - other priorities seem more pressing.

Yes, that's exactly the problem. We all should strive to make our arguments easy to attack, errors easy to notice and address. Not having that priority hurts epistemic commons.

Comment author: timtyler 20 November 2010 03:17:00PM * -2 points [-]

My argument was general - I think you want something specific.

However, preparing specific statements tailored to each of the DOOM-promoters involved is a non-trivial task, which would hurt me - by occupying my time with matters of relatively minor significance.

It would be nice if I had time available to devote to such tasks - but in the mean time, I am pretty sure the epistemic commons can get along without my additional input.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 20 November 2010 03:43:16PM * 0 points [-]

However, preparing specific statements tailored to each of the DOOM-promoters involved is a non-trivial task, which would hurt me - by occupying my time with matters of relatively minor significance.

Since significance of the matter is one of the topics under discussion, it can't be used as an argument.

Edit: But it works as an element of a description of why certain actions take place.

continue this thread »

Comment author: shokwave 21 November 2010 03:57:33PM 0 points [-]

If someone tells you they are trying to save the planet, you should normally treat that with considerable scepticism.

Well, yes, but if someone tells you they are the tallest person in the world, you also should treat that with considerable scepticism. After all, there can only be one person who actually is the tallest person in the world, and it's unlikely in the extreme that one random guy would be that person. A one-in-six-billion chance is small enough to reject out-of-hand, surely!

The guy looks pretty tall though. How about you get out a tape-measure and then consult the records on height?

"Considerable scepticism" is not an argument against a claim. It is an argument for more evidence. What evidence makes John Baez's claims that he is trying to save the world more likely to be signalling than a genuine attempt?

Comment author: timtyler 21 November 2010 04:43:58PM 0 points [-]

If someone I met told me they were the tallest person in the world, I would indeed treat that with considerable scepticism. I would count my knowledge about the 7 billion people in the world as evidence weighing heavily against the claim.

Comment author: shokwave 21 November 2010 05:13:18PM * 1 point [-]

Your 7 billion people are just your prior probability for him being the tallest before you actually examine his size. Once you have seen that he is somewhat tall, you can start developing a better prior:

If he's taller than any of the people you know that puts him in at least the top three hundredth - so less than 24 million people remain as contenders. If he's taller than anyone you've ever seen, that puts him in at least the top two thousandth - so less than 3.5 million of that 7 billion are actually potential evidence he's wrong.

So now our prior is 1 in 3.5 million. Now it's time to look for evidence. At this point, the number of people in the world is irrelevant: it's already been factored into the equation. What evidence can we use to find our posterior probability?

A cool thing about Bayesian reasoning is that you can cut extreme numbers down to reasonable sizes with some very cheap and very quick tests. In the case of possible ulterior motives for claiming to be saving the world, you can with some small effort distinguish between the "signalling" and "genuine" hypotheses. What tests - what evidence - should we be looking for here, to spot which one is the case?

XiXiDu comments on Goals for which Less Wrong does (and doesn't) help - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (101)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (101)

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