...given how easy it is to collect karma points simply by praising him even without substantiating the praise...
There is praise everywhere on the Internet, and in the case of Yudkowsky it is very much justified. People actually criticize him as well. The problem are some of the overall conclusions, extraordinary claims and ideas. They might be few compared to the massive amount of rationality, but they can easily outweigh all other good deeds if they are faulty.
Note that I am not saying that any of those ideas are wrong, but I think people here are too focused on, and dazzled by, the mostly admirable and overall valuable writings on the basics of rationality.
Really smart and productive people can be wrong, especially if they think they have to save the world. And if someone admits:
I mean, it seems to me that where I think an LW post is important and interesting in proportion to how much it helps construct a Friendly AI, how much it gets people to participate in the human project...
...I am even more inclined to judge the output of that person in the light of his goals.
To put it bluntly, people who focus on unfriendly AI might miss the weak spots that are more likely to be unfriendly humans, or even worse, friendly humans who are wrong.
One of the problems here is that talking about this mostly leads to discord or the perception of an attempted ad hominem. It is easy to focus on unfriendly AI but the critical examination of the motives or beliefs of actual people is hard. And in the case of existential risks it might actually be harmful, if the person is right.
Overall I don't think that there are any real excuses not to study existential risks. But there are other possibilities, like the The Future of Humanity Institute. Currently I would praise everyone who decides to contribute money to the FHI. Not that you can do much wrong by donating money to the SIAI, after all they contribute to the awareness of existential risks. But I haven't been able to overcome some bad feelings associated with it. And I don't know how to say this without sounding rude, but the Future of Humanity Institute and Nick Bostrom give a formal/professional appearance that the SIAI and Eliezer Yudkowsky lack. I am sorry, but that is my personal perception. The SIAI and LW sometimes appear completely over the top to me.
(ETA: Please don't stop writing about ideas that might seem crazy just because of the above, I love that stuff, I am only concerned about the possibility of real life consequences due to people who take those ideas too seriously.)
I don't know how to say this without sounding rude, but the Future of Humanity Institute and Nick Bostrom give a formal/professional appearance that the SIAI and Eliezer Yudkowsky lack.
There's some truth to that - but I can't say I am particularly sold on the FHI either. Yudkowsky seems less deluded about brain emulation than they are. Both organisations are basically doom-mongering. Doom-mongers are not known for their sanity or even-headedness:
...History is peppered with false prognostications of imminent doom. Blustering doomsayers are harmful: N
Basically this: "Eliezer Yudkowsky writes and pretends he's an AI researcher but probably hasn't written so much as an Eliza bot."
While the Eliezer S. Yudkowsky site has lots of divulgation articles and his work on rationality is of indisputable value, I find myself at a loss when I want to respond to this. Which frustrates me very much.
So, to avoid this sort of situation in the future, I have to ask: What did the man, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky, actually accomplish in his own field?
Please don't downvote the hell out of me, I'm just trying to create a future reference for this sort of annoyance.