thomblake 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.

Comments (276)

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

Comment author: lukeprog 29 August 2011 06:51:44PM *  11 points [-]

When did you contact me via other means? Was it by email? Who else do you think contacted me about the issue? As I've said, I don't recall seeing your earlier comments on the matter. I've also said I don't recall returning to the minicamp announcement discussion more than once after I originally posted it, but I don't think this was because I have a 'Mount Olympus' mentality - more likely, it's because I was busy doing other things. After all, it was an announcement post, not a 'let's discuss topic X' post or a post that asked questions and expected replies.

I am curious what's giving you the impression that I have an 'Olympus mentality', though, and whether others have gotten the same impression. The feeling 'on the ground' is quite different. I feel I (justly) have no authority at all because (1) I learned about the intelligence explosion less than a year ago and discuss it every day with people who have thought for much longer about the subject, (2) I have completed no degrees and published no papers (yet) on the subject, and (3) I am surrounded by math and programming geniuses who inadvertently cause me to feel insecure about my relative lack of training in those fields.

Moreover, I try to speak less "from personal authority" than everyone else, via bothering to cite the scientific papers supporting many of the claims I make - and even if all I did was track down the right papers, read the abstracts, and cite them, this would still be more work than other LWers usually do to ground their claims in the scientific literature. (Of course this isn't always the case; I'm talking mostly about claims made in my articles about psychology and neuroscience.)

(Also, I don't just start with personal claims and then do a Google scholar search for supporting evidence. I start with a question and then read textbook and review article excerpts to figure out which researchers are studying the topic, and then I read or skim their articles on the topic to figure out what we know, how we know it, and what we don't know. And then I post my claims and cite the studies I found that guided me to make those claims.)

Back to your requests for evidence of minicamp's success, and my impact upon it....

  • Anna took the time to write up some quantitative results from our exit survey. I haven't seen you either thank her for answering your request or give a different reply yet.
  • She also included testimonials as to my own effectiveness during minicamp, and other minicampers have given their own (positive) accounts. You haven't replied to any of those.
  • In a reply to you, jsalvatier linked to additional earlier positive testimonials, to which you also did not reply.
  • I listed the preliminary evidence that led me to call minicamp a success, and you didn't reply to that subthread yet.
  • You wanted to see the testimonials, and Anna posted them, and you didn't say thanks or reply to that yet either.
  • I explained that further data measuring the effects of minicamp on its participants was still being gathered, but that this takes time and SI lacks available staff hours. Four other people have contacted me so far so they can free up my time by completing volunteer-doable tasks. At first you said you would volunteer, but then you apparently withdrew the offer.

As others have said, your objections have been addressed and it's hard to see why you're still unsatisfied for now. Could you explain? Are you mostly just wanting to see additional quantitive evidence of minicamp's effects on its participants' lives? If so, I explained long ago that this data was still in the process of being collected and parsed.

Also keep in mind jsalvatier's comment:

I think a lot of the hubbub in this thread is due to different interpretations of SIAI related folks saying that the minicamp was 'successful'. I think many people here have interpreted 'success' as meaning something like "definitely improved the rationality of the attendants lastingly" and I think SIAI folks intended to say something like "was competently executed and gives us something promising to experiment with in the future".

Comment author: thomblake 29 August 2011 07:06:19PM 8 points [-]

Luke,

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: JackEmpty 29 August 2011 07:21:14PM 3 points [-]

I agree. This makes a perfect end point to the discussion, and unless anything actually relevant comes up, not reiteration of the same points, ignoring their previous refutations, you should stop it here.

Comment author: SilasBarta 30 August 2011 01:28:06AM -2 points [-]

To me, your comments here look like trolling, but I guess YMMV.