The LW community takes Yudkowsky seriously when he talks about quantum mechanics -- and indeed, he has cogent things to say. I think we ought to see who has something worth saying about AGI and risk.
He has found cogent things to repeat. Big difference. I knew of MWI long before I even heard of Eliezer, nothing he presents is new, and he doesn't present any actual counter arguments and ways it may be false, so he deserves -1 for that and further discounting on anything he talks about, due to one sided presentation of personal beliefs. (The biggest issue i can see is that we need QM to result in GR at large scale, and we can't figure how to do that. And so far as QM does not result in GR at large scale, it means what we know doesn't work for massive objects(as matter of physical fact), which means we don't know if there's superposition of macroscopic states, or not)
Furthermore, if I needed someone to actually do any QM, as in, e.g. for semiconductors, or making a quantum computer, or the like, he would not get hired because he doesn't really know anything from QM that is useful (and got phases wrong in his interferometer example but that's a minor point).
He has found cogent things to repeat. Big difference.
Let's stipulate that for a minute. I wasn't making any claim about novelty: I just wanted to show that non-experts are sometimes able to make points worth listening to.
I think readers here on LW might have cogent things to repeat about AGI, and I urge them to do so in those cases, even if they aren't working on the topic professionally.
I was wondering - what fraction of people here agree with Holden's advice regarding donations, and his arguments? What fraction assumes there is a good chance he is essentially correct? What fraction finds it necessary to determine whenever Holden is essentially correct in his assessment, before working on counter argumentation, acknowledging that such investigation should be able to result in dissolution or suspension of SI?
It would seem to me, from the response, that the chosen course of action is to try to improve the presentation of the argument, rather than to try to verify truth values of the assertions (with the non-negligible likelihood of assertions being found false instead). This strikes me as very odd stance.
Ultimately: why SI seems certain that it has badly presented some valid reasoning, rather than tried to present some invalid reasoning?
edit: I am interested in knowing why people agree/disagree with Holden, and what likehood they give to him being essentially correct, rather than a number or a ratio (that would be subject to selection bias).