lukeprog comments on Help Fund Lukeprog at SIAI - Less Wrong

40 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 24 August 2011 07:16AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (276)

Comments (276)

Sort By: Best

Show:

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

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 25 August 2011 09:34:58AM 19 points [-]

There are conspiracies that need ferreting out, but they do not revolve around generating fake data about the effectiveness of an alpha version of a rationality training camp that was offered for free to a grateful public.

I don't think anybody is accusing the minicamp folks of anything of the kind. But public criticism and analysis of conclusions is the only reliable way to defend against overconfidence and wishful thinking.

When I ended my term as an SIAI Visiting Fellow, I too felt like the experience would really change my life. In reality, most of the effects faded away within some months, though a number of factors combined to permanently increase my average long-term happiness level.

Back then the rationality exercises were still being worked out and Luke wasn't around, so it's very plausible that the minicamp is a lot more effective than the Visiting Fellow program was for me. But the prior for any given self-help program having a permanent effect is small, even if participants give glowing self-reports at first, so deep skepticism is warranted. No conspiracies are necessary, just standard wishful thinking biases.

Though I think this was the third time that Silas raised the question before finally getting a reply, despite his comment being highly upvoted each time. If some people are harboring suspicions of SIAI covering up information, well, I can't really say I'd blame them after that.

Comment author: lukeprog 25 August 2011 11:02:11AM * 6 points [-]

For the record, I for one don't recall reading any of SilasBarta's earlier comments on this topic.

Comment author: SilasBarta comment score below threshold [+] (68 children)

Comment author: lukeprog 29 August 2011 05:10:00PM * 11 points [-]

I don't understand this bit about my 'My Olympus' mentality. Until very recently I wasn't on SI's full-time staff. And as far as I can tell, I've spent vastly more time substantiating what I say by citing the relevant scientific literature (rather than relying on whatever personal authority I'm supposed to have, which I don't think is much at all) than anyone else on Less Wrong.

And no, I don't expect everyone to "fall in line or otherwise swoon." It's just that I don't have time to write up a 20-citation research article supporting every sentence I write. If the reasons that led me to write a certain sentence aren't available to you, as is usually the case, then you should only be updating your beliefs as much as you should given the evidence of my testimony, which in many cases should be very little.

As for you not believing me when I say that I don't recall reading your earlier comments calling for evidence about minicamp's success, well... the only evidence I have for you besides my testimony is that I hadn't replied to any of your earlier comments on the matter. If you don't believe me, well, so be it: that's all I've got.

Comment author: komponisto 29 August 2011 07:05:44PM 3 points [-]

I don't understand this bit about my 'My Olympus' mentality. Until very recently I wasn't on SI's full-time staff. And as far as I can tell, I've spent vastly more time substantiating what I say by citing the relevant scientific literature (rather than relying on whatever personal authority I'm supposed to have, which I don't think is much at all) than anyone else on Less Wrong.

Indeed you have, and you've been well rewarded, with 24,000+ karma points and a full-time position at SI (with EY himself begging for money to pay you in a promoted LW post -- I'll bet that felt good!). What you haven't earned, however, is the right to ignore people without their being offended. (The only person who might conceivably have that level of status is EY, and I think even that is debatable.)

The impression I think you give is one of writing all this great LW material, but then being "too busy" with your high-status SI work to read people's comments on it. Surely you can see how that comes across.

Comment author: lukeprog 29 August 2011 07:09:58PM 7 points [-]

I reply to many comments but certainly not all. I can't respond to all my critics, and it's probably unwise to do so. I'm also sympathetic to thomblake's comment on this discussion:

I appreciate your efforts to decode this 'Olympus mentality' nonsense, and in general to make sure you're not making communication errors. But at this point I believe you're just wasting your time. You've documented your research methods better than I've ever seen someone do, and they certainly don't need defending here.

On behalf of those who believe your work can positively impact the future of humanity and your time can be better spent elsewhere, I humbly request that you please file what you've been responding to under 'trolling' and move on.

Comment author: komponisto 29 August 2011 08:11:54PM 2 points [-]

To be clear, my comment pertained to reading others' comments, not necessarily replying to them.

I would also like to stress that, while I am not sympathetic to thomblake's comment (I could hardly be expected to be, since he effectively labeled a comment of mine "nonsense"), I have not voiced any complaint about the underlying subject (proof of minicamp effectiveness), and should not be confused with Silas. (This isn't to say that I don't think he has a point also; but I emphatically do not consider myself to have participated in any "trolling".)

I entered the discussion because of the "Olympus" issue, which I had noticed in other contexts and had considered bringing up before. (Evidently I am not the only one, because my comment on the matter has -- against all expectations of mine -- been voted up into the 20s.)

Comment author: BigManMachismoMaster 29 August 2011 09:57:12PM 5 points [-]

"The impression I think you give is one of writing all this great LW material, but then being "too busy" with your high-status SI work to read people's comments on it. Surely you can see how that comes across."

LOL. If one does form that impression from Luke's posts I would suggest that you:

1.) Don't be so sensitive and get a life beyond obssessing over blog comments. 2.) Realize that people who actually get things done usually don't make responding to blog posts a high or even medium priority in life. Seriously, most people with productive lives don't have time to obssess over blogs.

Appreciate the good content, criticize the points worth criticizing and try not to cry about the minor points and the fact that someone doesn't respond.

Comment author: wedrifid 30 August 2011 01:06:36AM 2 points [-]

Seriously, most people with productive lives don't have time to obssess over blogs.

To be fair the reference class should be bloggers, not productive people in general.

Comment author: SilasBarta comment score below threshold [+] (61 children)

Comment author: lukeprog 29 August 2011 05:25:56PM * 7 points [-]

What other mentality would lead to that behavior?

Being busy with research and writing? Seriously, I don't spend all day re-checking the comment threads on old LW posts. If you want to reach me, please contact me directly or reply to one of my comments, so it shows up in my LW inbox.

Comment author: BigManMachismoMaster 29 August 2011 10:03:12PM 3 points [-]

"Being busy with research and writing? Seriously, I don't spend all day re-checking the comment threads on old LW posts."

Amen!

Research & Writing > responding to some disgruntled blogger.

Comment author: SilasBarta 30 August 2011 01:18:17AM 0 points [-]

You were aware he was replying to a strawman and that I never expected that he should "spend all day rechecking ...", right? (Guess not, and ditto for those who voted you up.)

Comment author: wedrifid 30 August 2011 01:21:04AM * 6 points [-]

I can see the general point you were making with your criticisms and so could the other people who voted you up on your early comments on this issue. That being said I suggest you quit while you are (or were) ahead. It is too easy to let others reclaim the moral high ground if you stay on the same topic for too long and let them put you on the defensive.

This would allow you to maintain context specific credibility for use the next time the same, or similar claims were made about success that you don't believe are justified.

Comment author: Jack 30 August 2011 01:48:37AM 10 points [-]

Would I be unreasonable or unrealistic if I expressed a desire to not see this any of this SIAI inside baseball on Less Wrong... ever? Insofar as these rationality minicamps are something we think people who want to be more rational should take part it, obviously data on their effectiveness is very important. But insofar as the 'success' of the minicamp figured into SIAI's decision to hire lukeprog (and that seems to be the issue for the moment) I could care less. I realize of course Less Wrong and SIAI are intimately connected and I'm personally at the low end on a spectrum of interest and involvement in SIAI. And I'm fine with seeing the occasional fund-raising post or strategy discussions in Discussion... after all I'm not paying for the pleasure of posting and reading here. But an ongoing flame war about a random criteria in an SIAI hiring dominates the recent comments section and is of no interest to me (and one assumes, others in my position). In the interest of keeping SIAI and Less Wrong somewhat separate shouldn't SIAI have some other avenue donors can use to voice concerns and criticisms so that it doesn't interfere with the interesting content here?

(And if Silas isn't a donor... Thomas %&$@! Bayes why does anyone care?!)

continue this thread »

Comment author: SilasBarta comment score below threshold [+] (12 children)

Comment author: SilasBarta 29 August 2011 05:36:28PM 1 point [-]

Strawman much? Returning once to a topic you started != "spending all day re-checking the comment threads on old LW posts".

Comment author: lukeprog 29 August 2011 05:50:57PM * 9 points [-]

In order to see your earlier comments I would have had to return to that topic or specifically to the $125k post that I didn't write, and I'd need to have done that sometime after your comments appeared on one of those posts, and I would have had to have comments sorted so as to see your comment before I gave up scrolling through all the comments there, and something about the first bit of your comments would need to have grabbed my attention so that I would have read it rather than continuing to scroll down.

My LW comment-reading behavior doesn't 'zoom in' on comments from SilasBarta about minicamp. Either I would need to have gotten lucky or I would have to be doing that kind of thing with a broad selection of LW posts (and the comments made to them), and that's just not the case, because I don't "spend all day re-checking the comment threads on old LW posts."

Comment author: JoeW 31 August 2011 12:26:31AM 1 point [-]

Asking generally - is there a compelling technical reason we don't have an option to "subscribe" to a thread, or be emailed notifications of direct replies to our comments? Or even that there was a reply, if not the reply itself?

I am mildly irked that I have to go check my LW inbox for this; I think it reinforces my light tendencies towards online OCD and ADD to work to a pull model rather than a push.

(Or if there is one, please enlighten me, as I had thought I had searched sufficiently to find one if it existed.)

Comment author: SilasBarta 29 August 2011 05:58:29PM -1 points [-]

Even now, there are only 3 threads on your mini-camp result announcement topic, and mine is at the top, 16 comments in total. 90% of the discussion is about the request for evidence. No need to "zoom in" on anything, nor re-check frequently. Please, stop trying to come up with stories to account for not having seen it; it's obvious you just never came back.

And really, it's not some kind of mortal sin or anything -- I don't see why you're goint to such lengths to justify it.

Comment author: lukeprog 29 August 2011 06:05:48PM 6 points [-]

Its obvious you just never came back

I think I remember coming back once soon after posting, but YES! This is what I've been trying to say! I never saw your earlier comments concerning the evidence for minicamp's success, but you said you thought I was lying about that.

continue this thread »

Comment author: JackEmpty 29 August 2011 06:26:28PM 9 points [-]

If I was a Confessor I would have tazed you by now.

I am alright with your original questions on this, but now you're stretching. You seem to be going to unnecessary extremes to find fault with anything and everything that Luke has said on this. I judge this a violation of sanity.

continue this thread »

lukeprog comments on Help Fund Lukeprog at SIAI - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (276)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (276)

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