He's explained most of the big questions in philosophy either by personally solving them or by brilliantly summarizing other people's problems.
As a curiosity, what would the world look like if this were not the case? I mean, I'm not even sure what it means for such a sentence to be true or false.
Addendum: Sorry, that was way too hostile. I accidentally pattern-matched your post to something that an Objectivist would say. It's just that, in professional philosophy, there does not seem to be a consensus on what a "problem of philosophy" is. Likewise, there does not seem to be a consensus on what a solution to one would look like. It seems that most "problems" of philosophy are dismissed, rather than ever solved.
Here are examples of these philosophical solutions. I don't know which of these he solved personally, and which he simply summarized others' answer to:
What is free will? Ooops, wrong question. Free will is what a decision-making algorithm feels like from the inside.
What is intelligence? The ability to optimize things.
What is knowledge? The ability to constrain your expectations.
What should I do with the Newcomb's Box problem? TDT answers this.
...other examples include inventing Fun theory, using CEV to make a better version of utilitarianism, an...
I intended Leveling Up in Rationality to communicate this:
But some people seem to have read it and heard this instead:
This failure (on my part) fits into a larger pattern of the Singularity Institute seeming too arrogant and (perhaps) being too arrogant. As one friend recently told me:
So, I have a few questions: