aphyer comments on Lone Genius Bias and Returns on Additional Researchers - Less Wrong

24 Post author: ChrisHallquist 01 November 2013 12:38AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (63)

Comments (63)

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

Comment author: aphyer 03 November 2013 02:33:26AM 0 points [-]

Do you have any comments on the content of the article beyond this? The article makes a couple claims:

  1. The existence of Lone Genius Bias -- do you think it exists?
  2. The relevance of Lone Genius Bias -- do you think that, given Lone Genius Bias, you might be underestimating the odds of the US government developing AI and overestimating the odds of some nerd in a basement developing AI?
  3. The source of Lone Genius Bias -- do you think Lone Genius Bias comes from the small group size in the ancestral environment?

Your comment makes it clear that you disagree with the third of these. And that's a pretty fair response: post hoc evo-psych is dangerous, prone to bias, and usually wrong. But your comment ALSO seems to say that you think this entitles you to completely disregard the first two points of the article: the author's arguments for the existence of Lone Genius Bias and his arguments that it's misleading us as to where AI is likely to come from.

If you agree with the rest of the article, but dislike the evo-psych part, you can probably find a more polite way to phrase that. If you disagree with the rest of the article as well, you should be counter-arguing the rest of the article on its own merits, rather than zeroing out the one weakest point and disregarding every other point the author made.

Comment author: itaibn0 03 November 2013 04:54:02PM 4 points [-]

I actually like the rest of the article, and I agree with your first two points (especially in the context of EY's quote). I was just particularly annoyed by this paragraph and felt the need to comment.

I'm unsure whether I should have phrased my point more politely, and this is independent on my opinion of the rest of the piece.

Comment author: [deleted] 03 November 2013 08:48:07AM 4 points [-]

If you agree with the rest of the article, but dislike the evo-psych part, you can probably find a more polite way to phrase that. If you disagree with the rest of the article as well, you should be counter-arguing the rest of the article on its own merits, rather than zeroing out the one weakest point and disregarding every other point the author made.

What if they have no opinion either way about the rest of the article?

If I pointed out a typo without commenting about the rest of the article, you wouldn't tell me that my comment seems to say that I think this entitles me to completely disregard the rest of the article, would you? If you wouldn't, which nits can be picked on their own and which can't?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit