Mark_Friedenbach comments on Leaving LessWrong for a more rational life - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (268)
So I know less about CFAR than I do the other two sponsors of the site. There is in my mind some unfortunate guilt by association given partially shared leadership & advisor structure, but I would not want to unfairly prejudice an organization for that reason alone.
However there are some worrying signs which is why I feel justified in saying something at least in a comment, with the hope that someone might prove me wrong. CFAR used donated funds to pay for Yudkowsky's time in writing HPMoR. It is an enjoyable piece of fiction, and I do not object to the reasoning they gave for funding his writing. But it is a piece of fiction whose main illustrative character suffers from exactly the flaw that I talked about above, in spades. It is my understanding also that Yudkowsky is working on a rationality textbook for release by CFAR (not the sequences which was released by MIRI). I have not seen any draft of this work, but Yudkowsky is currently 0 for 2 on this issue, so I'm not holding my breath. And given that further donations to CFAR are likely to pay for the completion of this work which has a cringe-inducing Bayesian prior, I would be hesitant to endorse them. That and, as you said, publications have been sparse or non-existent.
But I know very little other than that about CFAR and I remain open to having my mind changed.
As Chief Financial Officer for CFAR, I can say all the following with some authority:
Absolutely false. To my knowledge we have never paid Eliezer anything. Our records indicate that he has never been an employee or contractor for us, and that matches my memory. I don't know for sure how he earned a living while writing HPMOR, but at a guess it was as an employed researcher for MIRI.
I'm not aware of whether Eliezer is writing a rationality textbook. If he is, it's definitely not with any agreement on CFAR's part to release it, and we're definitely not paying him right now whether he's working on a textbook or not.
Not a single penny of CFAR donations go into paying Eliezer.
I cannot with authority promise that will never happen. I want to be clear that I'm making no such promise on CFAR's behalf.
But we have no plans to pay him for anything to the best of my knowledge as the person in charge of CFAR's books and financial matters.
Thank you for correcting me on this.
So the source of the confusion is the Author's notes to HPMoR. Eliezer promotes both CFAR and MIRI workshops and donation drives, and is ambiguous about his full employment status--it's clear that he's a researcher at MIRI, but if was ever explicitly mentioned who was paying for his rationality work, I missed it. Googling "CFAR site:hpmor.com" does show that on http://hpmor.com/applied-rationality/, a page I never read he discloses not having a financial relationship with CFAR. But he notes many times elsewhere that "his employer" has been paying for him to write a rationality textbook, and at times given him paid sabbaticals to finish writing HPMOR because he was able to convince his employer that it was in their interest to fund his fiction writing.
As I said I can understand the argument that it would be beneficial to an organization like CFAR to have as fun and interesting an introduction to rationality as HPMOR is, ignoring for a moment the flaws in this particular work I pointed out elsewhere. It makes very little sense for MIRI to do so--I would frankly be concerned about them losing their non-profit status as a result, as writing rationality textbooks let alone harry potter fanfics is so, so far outside of MIRI's mission.
But anyway, it appears that I assumed it was CFAR employing him, not MIRI. I wonder if I was alone in this assumption.
EDIT: To be clear, MIRI and CFAR have shared history--CFAR is an offshoot of MIRI, and both organizations have shared offices and staff in the past. You staff page lists Eliezer Yudkowsky as a "Curriculum Consultant" and specifically mentions his work on HPMOR. I'll take your word that none of it was done with CFAR funding, but that's not the expectation a reasonable person might have from your very own website. If you want to distance yourself from HPMOR you might want to correct that.
To be clear, I can understand where your impression came from. I don't blame you. I spoke up purely to crush a rumor and clarify the situation.
That's a good point. I'll definitely consider it.
We're not trying to distance ourselves from HPMOR, by the way. We think it's useful, and it does cause a lot of people to show interest in CFAR.
But I agree, as a nonprofit it might be a good idea for us to be clearer about whom we are and are not paying. I'll definitely think about how to approach that.
Crap, I had to notice that I am confused once I've read about CFAR paying to Eliezer. In the back of my head I thought “that's too much!”, but I shrugged it off and believed.
Thank you for pointing this out. I think Mark should edit his comment to make clear he erred.
I was pleasantly surprised by empiricism in HPMOR.
It starts out with Harry's father believing that there's no way magic can exist, his mother believing it does and then Harry advocating using the empiric method to find out. Harry runs experiments to find out about the inheritance of magic. He runs experiments where he varies various factors to find out when a spell works with Hermione.
What's wrong with that kind of empiricism?
You have exhausted all of the examples that I can recall from the entire series. That's what's wrong.
The rest of the time Harry thinks up a clever explanation, and once the explanation is clever enough to solve all the odd constraints placed on it, (1) he stops looking for other explanations, and (2) he doesn't check to see if he is actually right.
Nominally, Harry is supposed to have learned his lesson in his first failed experimentation in magic with Hermoine. But in reality and in relation to the overarching plot, there was very little experimentation and much more "that's so clever it must be true!" type thinking.
"That's so clever it must be true!" basically sums up the sequence's justification for many-worlds, to tie us back to the original complaint in the OP.
Examples:
Comed-tea in ch. 14
Wizards losing their power in chap. 22
Atlantis in chap. 24
Gateway to the after life in chap. 39:
Laws of magic in chap. 85:
Vision and the invisibility cloak in chap. 95:
Centaurs and astrology in chap. 101
How is this 'literally the exact same logic that ID proponents use?' Creationists fallacize away the concept of natural selection, but I don't see how Harry is being unreasonable, given what he knows about the universe.
He's saying "I don't understand how magic could have come into being, it must have been invented by somebody." When in fact there could be dozens of other alternative theories.
I'll give you one that took me only three seconds to think up: the method for using magic isn't a delusion of the caster as Harry thought, but a mass delusion of all wizards everywhere. E.g. confounding every wizard in existence, or at least some threshold to think that Fixus Everthingus was a real spell would make it work. Maybe all it would have take to get his experiments with Hermoine to work is to confound himself as well, making it a double-blind experiment as it really should have been.
His argument here really is exactly the same as an intelligent designer: "magic is too complicated and arbitrary to be the result of some physical process."
He actually does kind of address that, by pointing out that there are only two known processes that produce purposeful effects:
So, yeah, I disagree strongly that the two arguments are "exactly the same". That's the sort of thing you say more for emphasis than for its being true.
I stand by my claim that they are the same.
An intelligent designer says "I have exhausted every possible hypothesis, there must be a god creator behind it all" when in fact there was at least one perfectly plausible hypothosis (natural selection) which he failed to thoroughly consider.
Harry says essentially "I have exhausted every possible hypothesis--natural selection and intelligent design--and there must be an Atlantean engineer behind it all" when in fact there were other perfectly plausible arguments such as the coordinated belief of a quorum of wizardkind explanation that I gave.
That doesn't address the question of why magic exists (not to mention it falls afoul of Occam's Razor). You seem to be answering a completely different question.
The question in the story and in this thread was "why purposeful complexity?" not "why magic?"
You may be right, but it is still more parsimonious than your idea (which requires some genuinely bizarre mechanism, far more than it being a self-delusion).
Not really. You've seen the movie Sphere, or read the book? Magic could be similar: the source of magic is a wish-granting device that makes whatever someone with wizard gene think of, actually happen. Of course this is incredibly dangerous--all I have to do is shout "don't think of the Apocalypse!" in a room of wizards and watch the world end. So early wizards like Merlin interdicted by using their magic to implant false memories into the entire wizarding population to provide a sort of basic set of safety rules -- magic requires wands, enchantments have to be said correctly with the right hand motion, creating new spells requires herculean effort, etc. None of that would be true, but the presence of other wizards in the world thinking it were true would be enough to make the wish-granting device enforce the rules anyway.
I think you're missing the point of the Many Worlds posts in the Sequences. I'll link to my response here.
Regarding HPMoR, Eliezer would agree that Harry's success rate is absurdly unrealistic (even for a story about witchcraft and wizardry). He wrote about this point in the essay "Level 2 Intelligent Characters":
I would agree with you, however, that HPMoR lets Harry intuit the right answer on the first guess too much. I would much prefer that the book prioritize pedagogy over literary directness, and in any case I have a taste for stories that meander and hit a lot of dead ends. (Though I'll grant that this is an idiosyncratic taste on my part.)
As a last resort, I think HPMoR could just have told us, in narration, about a bunch of times Harry failed, before describing in more detail the time he succeeded. A few sentences like this scattered throughout the story could at least reduce the message to system 2 that rationalist plans should consistently succeed, even if the different amounts of vividness mean that it still won't get through to system 1. But this is a band-aid; the deeper solution is just to find lots of interesting lessons and new developments you can tell about while Harry fails in various ways, so you aren't just reciting a litany of undifferentiated failures.
There's a difference between succeeding too often and succeeding despite not testing his ideas. The problem isn't having too many failed ideas, the problem is that testing is how one rules out a failed idea, so he seems unreasonably lucky in the sense that his refusal to test has unreasonably few consequences.
Without rereading I can recall experiment with time tuners where Harry finds out "Don't mess with time".
But what might be missing is a detailed exploration of "learning from mistakes". Harry get's things right through being smart.
That's an anti-example. He had a theory for how time turners could be used in a clever way to perform computation. His first experiment actually confirmed the consistent-timeline theory of time turners, but revealed the problem domain to be much larger than he had considered. Rather than construct a more rigorous and tightly controlled experiment to get at the underlying nature of timeline selection, he got spooked and walked away. It became a lesson in anti-empiricism: some things you just don't investigate.
That's exactly the problem. Rationalists get things right by relying on reality being consistent, not any particular smartness. You could be a total numbnut but still be good at checking other people's theories against reality and do better than the smartest guy in the world who thinks his ideas are too clever to be wrong.
So Harry got things right by relying on reality being consistent, until the very end, when reality turned out to be even more consistent than he could have thought. I think it is the most valuable lesson from HPMoR.
Except that it is a piece of fiction. Harry got things right because the author wrote it that way. In reality Harry acting the way Harry did would have been more likely to settle on a clever-sounding theory which he never tested until it was too late and which turned out to be hopelessly wrong and got him killed. But that's not how Yudkowsky chose to write the story.
I agree. Still, even if Harry died, my point would still stand.