David_Gerard comments on How SIAI could publish in mainstream cognitive science journals - Less Wrong

64 Post author: lukeprog 09 March 2011 09:17PM

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

Comments (76)

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

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 10 March 2011 08:03:35PM 8 points [-]

Agree or disagree with the following statement?

"After publishing the paper in a philosophy journal so that academics would be allowed to talk about it without losing face, you would have to write a separate essay to explain the ideas to anyone who actually wanted to know them, including those philosophers."

Comment author: David_Gerard 10 March 2011 11:38:13PM *  3 points [-]

We were discussing future fame and press coverage at the London meetup on Sunday (because a Fast Company journalist was present, no less - and participating in discussion very productively, I might add). I noted from Wikipedia's experience that the tech press are best treated with gunfire - do not talk to them under any circumstances. (There are individuals who are worth talking to, but they're very rare.) In retrospect, Wikipedia should really have gone headlong for the academic-interest press then the mainstream, bypassing the tech press entirely, from the beginning. An important place to apply the rule "taking someone seriously just because they pay you attention may not be a good idea."

What you do is philosophical engineering. Hit the philosophy journals and the tech press may find something more interesting to troll about.

(This ties into this thread.)