= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Thrasymachus comments on Eliezer's Sequences and Mainstream Academia - All
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 (153)
One anecdote given the 'PR' worries raised:
I have never read the sequences. After reading Luke's post, I am much less likely to: the impression given is the sequences are generally idiosyncratic takes which recapitulate an already existing and better organized literature. I also think it is more likely the sequences are overrated, either through readers being unaware their (or similar) insights have already been made, or lacking the technical background to critique them.
It also downgraded my estimate of the value of EY's work. Although I was pretty sceptical, I knew there was at least some chance that the sequences really were bursting with new insights and that LW really was streets ahead of mainstream academia. This now seems much less likely - although I don't think EY is a plagiarist, it seems most of the sequences aren't breaking new ground, but summarizing/unwittingly recapitulating insights that have already been made and taken further elsewhere.
So I can see the motivation for EY to defend that their originality: his stock goes down if the sequences are neat summaries but nothing that new rather than bursting with new and important insights, and EY's stock is important for things like donations, public perception of him and the SI, etc. (Both my likelihood of donating and my regard for SI has been lowered a bit by this post and comments). However, EY's way of responding to (weakly implied) criticism with catty arrogance compounds the harm.
It seems like his latest sequence is offering summarized versions of at least some of the previous sequences.
Wow. Deja vu. I actually have to follow this link and double check the date to see if this was the same comment we dealt with before or just a repetition of the same agenda by the same sockpuppet. If you check DevilWorm's user page you will see that this comment is a copy and paste clone of one he previously made that has now been deleted or banned (5 comments below on that page, to be precise). Once again it has received initial upvotes---either from his other accounts or from users who are vulnerable to persuasion on DevilWorm's only topic of discussion (the worthlessness of Eliezer Yudkowsky).
Come on, when I want to harp on about one issue repetitively I at least either make up new speech every time or make an explicit link to the previous one.
Because the moderators don't have access to a "ban account' feature for accounts that only post 'objectionable' material.
Not as such, but I approve of disappearing anything everything from known trolling sockpuppet accounts.
(I feel like I should be paying a 5 karma troll-feeding-toll to write this but for some reason there are upvotes where I expected downvotes. I'll wait a day to see how things stabilize then consider if my model of lesswrong users needs to be updated.)
Actually I think the sequences are worth reading even though I deplore the tub-thumping, lack of informedness, etc.
What would you expect if someone bright but uninformed about philosophy invented their own philosophy?
Lots of ground re-covered. Lots of avoidable errors. Some novel insights.
If you are at all interested in rationality it would be a huge shame for you to skip the Sequences.
Yes, a lot of the material in the Sequences could also be obtained by reading very very carefully a few hundred impenetrable scholarly books that most people have never heard of in five or ten different disciplines, supplemented by a few journal articles, plus some additional insights by "reading between the lines", plus drawing all the necessary connections between them. But you will not do this.
The Sequences condense all that information, put it in a really fun, really fascinating format, and transfer all of it into the deepest levels of your brain in a way that those hundred books wouldn't. And then there's some really valuable new material. Luke and Eliezer can argue whether the new material is 30% of the Sequences or 60% of the Sequences, but either number is still way more output than most people will produce over their entire lives.
If your worry is that they will just be recapitulating things you already know, I am pretty doubtful; I don't know your exact knowledge level, but they were pretty exciting for me when I first read them and I had college degrees in philosophy and psychology which are pretty much the subjects covered. And if they are new to you, then from a "whether you should read them" point of view it doesn't matter if Eliezer copied them verbatim off Wikipedia.
Seriously. Read the Sequences. Luke, who is the one arguing against their originality above, says that they are the one book he would like to save if there was an apocalypse. I would have to think a long time before saying the same but they're certainly up there.
Also, as a fellow doctor interested in utiltiarianism/efficient charity, I enjoyed your blog and associated links.
For the record, when I read Eliezer's comments about the originality of The Sequences, it sounds to me like he and I have pretty much the same estimate of how original The Sequences are.
Fair enough. Your and Luke's recommendation are enough for me to read at least some to see if I have got the wrong impression.
The sequences need a summary like the one you just wrote, the way books have a summary on the cover. Maybe this should be taken as a hint that you'd get more mileage out of the sequences with a really good description placed prominently in front of them. That could quickly re-frame non-originality claims as being irrelevant by plainly stating that they're an accessible and entertaining way to learn about logic and bias (implying that the presentation is valuable even if some of the content can be found elsewhere), with (whatever amount) of new content on X, Y, Z topics. If you choose to write such a description, I'd really like to know what you got out of them that your philosophy and psychology degrees didn't give you.
The sequences need a second edition. It's sheer hubris to think that nothing has changed in four years.
There would be room for improvement even without anything changing. They were produced as daily blog posts for the purpose of forcing Eliezer to get his thoughts down on a page.
You might want to link to "Yes, a blog" by Academian.