gwern comments on Thoughts on the Singularity Institute (SI) - Less Wrong

256 Post author: HoldenKarnofsky 11 May 2012 04:31AM

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

Comments (1270)

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

Comment author: gwern 17 May 2012 11:20:45PM *  6 points [-]

I don't think it's hard to explain at all: Eliezer prioritized a donor (presumably long-term and one he knew personally) over an article. I disagree with it, but you know what, I saw this sort of thing all the time on Wikipedia, and I don't need to go looking for theories of why administrators were crazy and deleted Daniel Brandt's article. I know why they did, even though I strongly disagreed.

3) most importantly, never explained his response (practically impossible without admitting his mistake).

He or someone else must have explained at some point, or I wouldn't know his reason was that the article was giving a donor nightmares.

Is deleting one post such an issue to get worked up over? Or is this just discussed because it's the best criticism one can come up with besides "he's a high school dropout who hasn't yet created an AI and so must be completely wrong"?

Comment author: Rain 18 May 2012 01:03:55PM 3 points [-]

Please cite your claim that the affected person was a donor.

Comment author: metaphysicist 18 May 2012 05:10:09AM *  3 points [-]

Is deleting one post such an issue to get worked up over? Or is this just discussed because it's the best criticism one can come up with besides "he's a high school dropout who hasn't yet created an AI and so must be completely wrong"?

Like JoshuaZ, I hadn't known a donor was involved. What's the big deal? People donote to SIAI because they trust Eliezer Yudkowsky's integrity and intellect. So it's natural to ask whether he's someone you can count on to deliver the truth. Caving to donors is inauspicious.

In a related vein, I also found disturbing that Eliezer Yudkowsky repeated his claim that that Loosemoore guy "lied." Having had years to cool off, he still hasn't summoned the humility to admit he stretched the evidence for Loosemoore's deceitfulness: Loosemoore is obviously a cognitive scientist.

These two examples paint a picture of Eliezer Yudkowsky as a person subject to strong personal loyalties and animosities that exceed his dedication to the truth. In the first incident, his loyalty to a donor induced him to suppress information; in the Loosemoore incident, his longstanding animosity to Loosemoore made him unable to adjust his earlier opinion.

I hope these impressions aren't accurate. But one thing seems for sure: Eliezer Yudkowsky is not a person for serious self-criticism. Has he admitted any significant intellectual error since he became a rationalist? [Serious question.]

Comment author: gwern 18 May 2012 07:42:55AM 6 points [-]

Caving to donors is inauspicious.

It's also a double-bind. If you do nothing, you are valuing donors at less than some random speculation which is unusually dubious even by LessWrong's standards, resting as it does on a novel speculative decision theory (acausal trade) whose most obvious requirement (implementing sufficiently similar algorithms) is beyond blatantly false when applied to humans and FAIs. (If you actually believe that SIAI is a good charity, pissing off donors over something like this is a really bad idea, and if you don't believe SIAI is a good charity, well, that's even more damning, isn't it?) And if you delete it, well, you get exactly this stupid mess which is still being dragged up years later.

I hope these impressions aren't accurate. But one thing seems for sure: Eliezer Yudkowsky is not a person for serious self-criticism. Has he admitted any significant intellectual error since he became a rationalist? [Serious question.]

Repudiating most of his long-form works like CFAI and LOGI and CEV isn't admission of error?

Personally, when he was writing the Sequences, I found it a little obnoxious how he kept saying "I was totally on the wrong track and mistaken before I was enlightened & came to understand Bayesian statistics, but now I have a chance of being less wrong" - once is enough, we get it already, I'm not that interested in your intellectual evolution.

Comment author: evand 19 May 2012 08:51:32PM 0 points [-]

Repudiating most of his long-form works like CFAI and LOGI and CEV isn't admission of error?

As someone who hasn't been around that long, it would be interesting to have links. I'm having trouble coming up with useful search terms.

Comment author: gwern 19 May 2012 09:15:00PM 0 points [-]

Creating Friendly AI, Levels of Organization in General Intelligence, and Coherent Extrapolated Volition.

Comment author: evand 19 May 2012 09:42:40PM 0 points [-]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant links to the repudiations. I've read some of the material in CFAI and CEV, but not the retraction, and not yet any of LOGI.

Comment author: gwern 19 May 2012 09:45:43PM 0 points [-]

Oh. I don't remember, then, besides the notes about them being obsolete.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 18 May 2012 10:17:14PM 0 points [-]

Once again: ROKO DELETED HIS OWN POST. NO OUTSIDE CENSORSHIP WAS INVOLVED.

This is how rumors evolve, ya know.

Comment author: Wei_Dai 18 May 2012 11:28:50PM 28 points [-]

Eliezer, I upvoted you and was about to apologize for contributing to this rumor myself, but then found this quote from a copy of the Roko post that's available online:

Meanwhile I'm banning this post so that it doesn't (a) give people horrible nightmares and (b) give distant superintelligences a motive to follow through on blackmail against people dumb enough to think about them in sufficient detail, though, thankfully, I doubt anyone dumb enough to do this knows the sufficient detail. (I'm not sure I know the sufficient detail.)

Perhaps your memory got mixed up because Roko subsequently deleted all of his other posts and comments? (Unless "banning" meant something other than "deleting"?)

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 18 May 2012 11:54:13PM 13 points [-]

Now I've got no idea what I did. Maybe my own memory was mixed up by hearing other people say that the post was deleted by Roko? Or Roko retracted it after I banned it, or it was banned and then unbanned and then Roko retracted it?

I retract my grandparent comment; I have little trust for my own memories. Thanks for catching this.

Comment author: komponisto 19 May 2012 02:45:26AM 13 points [-]

A lesson learned here. I vividly remembered your "Meanwhile I'm banning this post" comment and was going to remind you, but chickened out due to the caps in the great-grandparent which seemed to signal that you Knew What You Were Talking About and wouldn't react kindly to correction. Props to Wei Dai for having more courage than I did.

Comment author: Wei_Dai 19 May 2012 03:49:26PM *  19 points [-]

I'm surprised and disconcerted that some people might be so afraid of being rebuked by Eliezer as to be reluctant to criticize/correct him even when such incontrovertible evidence is available showing that he's wrong. Your comment also made me recall another comment you wrote a couple of years ago about how my status in this community made a criticism of you feel like a "huge insult", which I couldn't understand at the time and just ignored.

I wonder how many other people feel this strongly about being criticized/insulted by a high status person (I guess at least Roko also felt strongly enough about being called "stupid" by Eliezer to contribute to him leaving this community a few days later), and whether Eliezer might not be aware of this effect he is having on others.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 19 May 2012 05:06:32PM *  9 points [-]

Your comment also made me recall another comment you [Kip] wrote a couple of years ago about how my status in this community made a criticism of you feel like a "huge insult", which I couldn't understand at the time and just ignored.

My brain really, really does not want to update on the numerous items of evidence available to it that it can hit people much much harder now, owing to community status, than when it was 12 years old.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 19 May 2012 08:27:49PM 6 points [-]

(nods) I've wondered this many times.
I have also at times wondered if EY is adopting the "slam the door three times" approach to prospective members of his community, though I consider this fairly unlikely given other things he's said.

Somewhat relatedly, I remember when lukeprog first joined the site, he and EY got into an exchange that from what I recall of my perspective as a completely uninvolved third party involved luke earnestly trying to offer assistance and EY being confidently dismissive of any assistance someone like luke could provide, and at the time I remember feeling sort of sorry for luke, who it seemed to me was being treated a lot worse than he deserved, and surprised that he kept at it.

The way that story ultimately turned out led me to decide that my model of what was going on was at least importantly incomplete, and quite possibly fundamentally wrongheaded, but I haven't further refined that model.

Comment author: wedrifid 26 May 2012 04:16:01AM 5 points [-]

I wonder how many other people feel this strongly about being criticized/insulted by a high status person (I guess at least Roko also felt strongly enough about being called "stupid" by Eliezer to contribute to him leaving this community a few days later), and whether Eliezer might not be aware of this effect he is having on others.

As a data point here I tend to empathize with the recipient of such barrages to what I subjectively estimate as about 60% of the degree of emotional affect that I would experience if it were directed at myself. Particularly if said recipient is someone I respect as much as Roko and when the insults are not justified - less if they do not have my respect and if the insults are justified I experience no empathy. It is the kind of thing that I viscerally object to having in my tribe and where it is possible I try to ensure that the consequences to the high status person for their behavior are as negative as possible - or at least minimize the reward they receive if the tribe is one that tends to award bullying.

There are times in the past - let's say 4 years ago - where such an attack would certainly prompt me to leave a community, even if the community was otherwise moderately appreciated. Now I believe I am unlikely to leave over such an incident. I would say I am more socially resilient and also more capable as understanding social politics as a game and so take it less personally. For instance when received the more mildly expressed declaration from Eliezer "You are not safe to even associate with!" I don't recall experiencing any flight impulses - more surprise.

I'm surprised and disconcerted that some people might be so afraid of being rebuked by Eliezer as to be reluctant to criticize/correct him even when such incontrovertible evidence is available showing that he's wrong.

I was a little surprised at first too at reading of komponisto's reticence. Until I thought about it and reminded myself that in general I err on the side of not holding my tongue when I ought. In fact, the character "wedrifid" on wotmud.org with which I initially established this handle was banned from the game for 3 months for making exactly this kind of correction based off incontrovertible truth. People with status are dangerous and in general highly epistemically irrational in this regard. Correcting them is nearly always foolish.

I must emphasize that part of my initial surprise at kompo's reticence is due to my model of Eliezer as not being especially corrupt in this kind of regard. In response to such correction I expect him to respond positively and update. While Eliezer may be arrogant and a tad careless when interacting with people at times but he is not an egotistical jerk enforcing his dominance in his domain with dick moves. That's both high praise (by my way of thinking) and a reason for people to err less on the side of caution with him and to take less personally any 'abrupt' things he may say. Eliezer being rude to you isn't a precursor to him beating you to death with a metaphorical rock to maintain his power - as our instincts may anticipate. He's just being rude.

Comment author: XiXiDu 19 May 2012 04:22:13PM 6 points [-]

I'm surprised and disconcerted that some people might be so afraid of being rebuked by Eliezer as to be reluctant to criticize/correct him even when such incontrovertible evidence is available showing that he's wrong.

People have to realize that to critically examine his output is very important due to the nature and scale of what he is trying to achieve.

Even people with comparatively modest goals like trying to become the president of the United States of America should face and expect a constant and critical analysis of everything they are doing.

Which is why I am kind of surprised how often people ask me if I am on a crusade against Eliezer or find fault with my alleged "hostility". Excuse me? That person is asking for money to implement a mechanism that will change the nature of the whole universe. You should be looking for possible shortcomings as well!

Everyone should be critical of Eliezer and SIAI, even if they agree with almost anything. Why? Because if you believe that it is incredible important and difficult to get friendly AI just right, then you should be wary of any weak spot. And humans are the weak spot here.

Comment author: private_messaging 26 May 2012 05:11:40AM *  1 point [-]

That's why outsiders think it's a circlejerk. I've heard of Richard Loosemore whom as far as i can see was banned over corrections on the "conjunction fallacy", not sure what exactly went on, but ofc having spent time reading Roko thing (and having assumed that there was something sensible I did not hear of, and then learning that there wasn't) its kind of obvious where my priors are.

Comment author: Manfred 26 May 2012 06:12:21AM *  0 points [-]

Maybe try keeping statements more accurate by qualifying your generalizations ("some outsiders"), or even just saying "that's why I think this is a circlejirk." That's what everyone ever is going to interpret it as anyhow (intentional).

Comment author: private_messaging 26 May 2012 08:42:18AM *  1 point [-]

Maybe you guys are too careful with qualifying everything as 'some outsiders' and then you end up with outsiders like Holden forming negative views which you could of predicted if you generalized more (and have the benefit of Holden's anticipated feedback without him telling people not to donate).

Comment author: Manfred 26 May 2012 07:25:57PM *  0 points [-]

Maybe. Seems like you're reaching, though: Maybe something bad comes from us being accurate rather than general about things like this, and maybe Holden criticizing SIAI is a product of this on LessWrong for some reason, and therefore it is in fact better for you to say inaccurate things like "outsiders think it's a circlejrik." Because you... care about us?

Comment author: XiXiDu 19 May 2012 04:29:09PM 0 points [-]

I wonder how many other people feel this strongly about being criticized/insulted by a high status person (I guess at least Roko also felt strongly enough about being called "stupid" by Eliezer to contribute to him leaving this community a few days later), and whether Eliezer might not be aware of this effect he is having on others.

I don't feel insulted at all. He is much smarter than me. But I am also not trying to accomplish the same as him. If he calls me stupid for criticizing him, that's as if someone who wants to become a famous singer is telling me that I can't sing when I criticized their latest song. No shit Sherlock!

Comment author: Sniffnoy 19 May 2012 12:13:51AM 3 points [-]

To clarify for those new here -- "retract" here is meant purely in the usual sense, not in the sense of hitting the "retract" button, as that didn't exist at the time.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 19 May 2012 12:35:55AM *  5 points [-]

IIRC Roko deleted the speculation-about-superintelligences part of the post shortly after its publication, but discussion in the comments raged on, so you subsequently banned the whole post/discussion.

And a few days later, primarily for unrelated reasons but probably with this incident as a trigger, Roko deleted his account, which on that version of LW meant that the text of all his comments disappeared (on the current version of LW, only author's name gets removed when account is deleted, comments don't disappear).

Comment author: komponisto 19 May 2012 02:27:19AM 6 points [-]

Roko never deleted his account; he simply deleted all of his comments individually.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 19 May 2012 10:54:57AM *  3 points [-]

Surely not individually (there were probably thousands and IIRC it was also happening to other accounts, so wasn't the result of running a self-made destructive script); what you're seeing is just how "deletion of account" performed on old version of LW looks like on current version of LW.

Comment author: komponisto 19 May 2012 11:11:28AM 2 points [-]

No, I don't think so; in fact I don't think it was even possible for users to delete their own accounts on the old version of LW. (See here.) SilasBarta discovered Roko in the process of deleting his comments, before they had been completely deleted.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 19 May 2012 11:21:49AM *  1 point [-]

I don't think it was even possible for users to delete their own accounts on the old version of LW. (See here.)

That post discusses the fact that account deletion was broken at one time in 2011, and a decision was being made about how to handle account deletion in the future. It doesn't say anything relevant about how it worked in 2010.

SilasBarta discovered Roko in the process of deleting his comments, before they had been completely deleted.

"April last year" in that comment is when LW was started, I don't believe it refers to incomplete deletion. The comments before that date that remained could be those posted under a different username (account), automatically copied from overcomingbias along with the Sequences.

Comment author: Wei_Dai 19 May 2012 03:21:25PM 4 points [-]

Here is clearer evidence that account deletion simply did nothing back then. My understanding is the same as komponisto's: Roko wrote a script to delete all of his posts/comments individually.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 19 May 2012 05:09:44PM 3 points [-]

IIRC Roko deleted the speculation-about-superintelligences part of the post shortly after its publication, but discussion in the comments raged on, so you subsequently banned the whole post/discussion.

This sounds right to me, but I still have little trust in my memories.

Comment author: [deleted] 20 May 2012 07:30:06PM 3 points [-]

Or little interest in rational self-improvement by figuring what actually happened and why?

[You've made an outrageously self-assured false statement about this, and you were upvoted—talk about sycophancy—for retracting your falsehood, while suffering no penalty for your reckless arrogance.]

This sounds right to me, but I still have little trust in my memories.

Comment author: Rhwawn 19 May 2012 12:16:35AM 2 points [-]

Are there no server logs or database fields that would clarify the mystery? Couldn't Trike answer the question? (Yes, this is a use of scarce time - but if people are going to keep bringing it up, a solid answer is best.)

Comment author: JoshuaZ 18 May 2012 10:50:08PM 8 points [-]

Your point is well taken, but since part of the concern about that whole affair was your extreme language and style, maybe stating this in normal caps might be a reasonable step for PR.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 17 May 2012 11:30:37PM 1 point [-]

Has he said anywhere that the individual with nightmares was a donor? Note incidentally that having content that is acting as that much of a cognitive basilisk might be a legitimate reason to delete (although I'm inclined to think that it wasn't).