= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
XiXiDu comments on Thoughts on the Singularity Institute (SI) - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (1270)
To those who think Eliezer is exaggerating: please link me to "informed criticism of SIAI."
It is so hard to find good critics.
Edit: Well, I guess there are more than two examples, though relatively few. I was wrong to suggest otherwise. Much of this has to do with the fact that SI hasn't been very clear about many of its positions and arguments: see Beckstead's comment and Hallquist's followup.
It would help if you could elaborate on what you mean by "informed".
Most of what Holden wrote, and much more, has been said by other people, excluding myself, before.
I don't have the time right now to wade through all those years of posts and comments but might do so later.
And if you are not willing to take into account what I myself wrote, for being uninformed, then maybe you will however agree that at least all of my critical comments that have been upvoted to +10 (ETA changed to +10, although there is a lot more on-topic at +5) should have been taken into account. If you do so you will find that SI could have updated some time ago on some of what has been said in Holden's post.
Seconded. It seems to me like it's not even possible to mount properly informed criticism if much of the findings are just sitting unpublished somewhere. I'm hopeful that this is actually getting fixed sometime this year, but it doesn't seem fair to not release information and then criticize the critics for being uninformed.