You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Bound_up comments on Open thread, Nov. 23 - Nov. 29, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: MrMind 23 November 2015 07:59AM

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

Comments (257)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Bound_up 23 November 2015 11:45:50AM 1 point [-]

I've heard the Beatles have some recorded song they never released because they were too low quality. I think it would be worthwhile to study their material in its full breadth, mediocrity included, to get a sense for the true nature of the minds behind some greatness.

I've saved writings and poetry and raw, potentially embarrassing past creations for the sake of a similar understanding. I wish I had recordings of my initial fumblings with the instruments I now play rather better.

So it is in this general context of seeking fuller understanding, that I ask if anyone knows where to find these legendary old writings from Eliezer Yudkowsky, reputed to be embarrassing in their hubris, etc..

Comment author: Viliam 23 November 2015 12:06:05PM *  7 points [-]

The "legendary old writings from Eliezer Yudkowsky" are probably easy to find, but I am not going to help you.

I do not like the idea of people (generally, not just EY) being judged for what they wrote dozens of years ago. (The "sense for the true nature" seems like the judgement is being prepared.)

Okay, I would make an exception in some situations; the rule of thumb being "more extreme things take longer time to forget". For example if someone would advocate genocide, or organize a murder of a specific person, then I would be suspicious of them even ten years later. But "embarrassing in their hubris"? Come on.

Comment author: FrameBenignly 23 November 2015 10:14:25PM 4 points [-]

For many types of problems, analyzing how a system changed over time is a more effective method of understanding a problem than comparing one system's present state with another system's present state.

Comment author: MrMind 24 November 2015 08:24:22AM 0 points [-]

Is that true even with highly non-linear systems like humans?

Comment author: FrameBenignly 24 November 2015 05:21:34PM 1 point [-]
Comment author: MrMind 25 November 2015 09:40:04AM 2 points [-]

Very interesting, thanks.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 23 November 2015 09:39:12PM 5 points [-]

I don't think EY's ego got any smaller with time.

Comment author: polymathwannabe 25 November 2015 10:27:40PM *  4 points [-]

Is it at all meaningful to you that EY writes this in his homepage?

You should regard anything from 2001 or earlier as having been written by a different person who also happens to be named “Eliezer Yudkowsky”. I do not share his opinions.

It is true that EY has a big ego, but he also has the ability to renounce past opinions and admit his mistakes.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 26 November 2015 05:54:22PM 0 points [-]

Absolutely, it is meaningful.

Comment author: CellBioGuy 25 November 2015 02:33:21AM *  2 points [-]

I can hardly wait to look back on his 'shameless blegging' post in a few years and compare it to reality. Pretty sure I know what the result will be.

Comment author: Viliam 24 November 2015 08:47:03AM 1 point [-]

In the meantime he wrote the Sequences and HPMoR, and founded MIRI and CFAR. So maybe the distance between his ego and his real output got smaller.

Also, as Eliezer mentions in the Sequences, he used to have an "affective death spiral" about "intelligence", which is probably visible in his old writings, and contributes to the reader's perception of "big ego".

I don't really mind big egos as long as they drive people to produce something useful. (Yeah, we could have a separate debate about how much MIRI or HPMoR are really useful. But the old writings would be irrelevant for that debate.)

Comment author: CellBioGuy 24 November 2015 05:40:21PM *  4 points [-]

He literally wrote plans about what he would do with the billions of dollars the singularity institute would be bringing in by 2005 using the words 'silicon crusade' to describe its actions to bring about the singularity and interstellar supercivilization by 2010 so as to avoid the apocalyptic nanowar that would have started by then without their guidance. He also went on and on and on about his SAT scores in middle school (which are lower than those of one of my friends, taken via the same program at the same age) and how they proved he is a mutant supergenius who is the only possible person who can save the world.

I am distinctly unimpressed.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 24 November 2015 03:17:39PM *  4 points [-]

Here is what you sound like:

"But look at all this awesome fan fiction, and furthermore this 'big ego' is all your perception anyways, and furthermore I don't even mind it."

Why so defensive about EY's very common character flaws (which don't really require any exotic explanation, btw, e.g. think horses not zebras)? They don't reflect poorly on you.


EY's past stuff is evidence.

Comment author: Viliam 25 November 2015 09:10:36AM *  14 points [-]

I'm defensive about digging in people's past, only to laugh that as teenagers they had the usual teenage hubris, and maybe as highly intelligent people they kept it for a few more years... and then use it to hint that even today 'deeply inside' they are 'essentially the same', i.e. not worth to be taken seriously.

What exactly are we punishing here; what exactly are we rewarding?

Ten or more years ago I also had a few weird ideas. My advantage is that I didn't publish them on visible places in English, and that I didn't become famous enough so people would now spend their time digging in my past. Also, I kept most of my ideas to myself, because I didn't try to organize people into anything. I didn't keep a regular diary, and when I find some old notes, I usually just cringe and quickly destroy them.

(So no, I don't care about any of Eliezer's flaws reflecting on me, or anything like that. Instead I imagine myself in a parallel universe, where I was more agenty and perhaps less introverted, so I started to spread my ideas sooner and wider, had the courage to try changing the world, and now people are digging up similar kinds of my writings. Generally, this is a mechanism for ruining sincere people's reputations: find something they wrote when they were just as sincere as now only less smart, and make people focus on that instead of what they are saying today.)

I guess I am oversensitive about this, because "pointing out that I failed at something a few years ago, therefore I shouldn't be trusted to do it, ever" was something my mother often did to me while I was a teenager. People grow up, damn it! It's not like once a baby, always a baby.

Everyone was a baby once. The difference is that for some people you have the records, and for other people you don't; so you can imagine that the former are still 'deep inside' baby-like and the latter are not. But that's confusing the map with the territory. As the saying goes, "an expert is a person who came from another city" (so you have never seen their younger self.). As the fictional evidence proves, you could have literally godlike powers, and people would still diss you if they knew you as a kid. But today on internet, everything is one big city, and anything you say can get documented forever. (Knowing this, I will forbid my children to use their real names online. Which probably will not help enough, because twenty years later there will be other methods for easily digging in people's past.)

Ah, whatever. It's already linked here anyway. So if it makes you feel better about yourself (returning the courtesy of online psychoanalysis) to read stupid stuff Eliezer wrote in the past, go ahead!

EDIT: I also see this as a part of a larger trend of intelligent people focusing too much on attacking each other instead of doing something meaningful. I understand the game-theoretical reasons for that (often it is easier to get status by attacking other people's work than presenting your own), but I don't want to support that trend.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 25 November 2015 06:14:35PM *  2 points [-]

EY is not a baby, and was not a baby in the time period under discussion. He is in his mid thirties today.


I have zero interest in gaining status in the LW/rationalist community. I already won the status tournament I care about. I have no interest in "crabbing" for that reason. I have no interest in being a "guru" to anyone. I am not EY's competitor, I am involved in a different game.

Whether me being free of the confounding influence of status in this context makes me a more reliable narrator I will let you decide.


What I am very interested in is decomposing cult behavior into constituent pieces to try to understand why it happens. This is what makes LW/rationalists so fascinating to me -- not quite a cult in the standard Scientology sense, but there is definitely something there.

Comment author: Viliam 25 November 2015 08:53:25PM *  2 points [-]

Mid thirties in 2015 means about twenty in 2001 (the date of most of the linked archives), right? That's halfway to baby from where I am now. Some of my cringeworthy diaries were written in my mid twenties.

Comment author: Lumifer 25 November 2015 07:02:46PM *  2 points [-]

This is what makes LW/rationalists so fascinating to me

Welcome to the zoo! Please do not poke the animals with sticks of throw things at them to attract their attention. Do not push fingers or other object through the fences. We would also ask you not to feed the animals as it might lead to digestive problems.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 25 November 2015 07:15:26PM 4 points [-]

It's an interesting zoo, where all the exhibits think they're the ones visiting and observing...

Comment author: Lumifer 25 November 2015 07:21:30PM 1 point [-]
Comment author: Viliam 25 November 2015 08:28:45PM 0 points [-]

The true observers we'll never know, because by definition they are not commenting here.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 25 November 2015 06:47:47PM 2 points [-]

Downvote explanation:

Using claim of immunity to status and authority games as evidence to assert a claim.

Which is to say, you are using a claim of immunity to status and authority games to assert status and authority.

Yes, that's right out of my own playbook, too. I welcome anybody who catches me at it to downvote me, and please let me know I've done it, as it is an insidious logical mistake I find it impossible to catch myself at.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 25 November 2015 07:32:43PM *  0 points [-]

I am not claiming status and authority (I don't want it), I am saying EY has a big ego. I don't think I need status and authority for that, right?

Say I did gain status and authority on LW. What would I do with it? I don't go to meetups, I hardly interact with the rationalist community in real life. What is this supposed status going to buy me, in practice? I am not trying to get laid. I am not looking to lead anybody, or live in a 'rationalist house,' or write long posts read by the community. Forget status, I don't even claim to be a community member, really.

I care about status in the context relevant to me (my academic community, for example, or my workplace).


Or, to put it simply, you guys are not my tribe. I just don't care enough about status here.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 25 November 2015 08:17:29PM 1 point [-]

You're claiming to have status and authority to make a particular claim about reality - "Outsider" status, a status which gains you, with respect to adjucation of insider status and authority games... status and authority.

Now, your argument could stand or fall on its own merits, but you've chosen not to permit this, and instead have argued that you should be taken seriously on the merits of your personal relationship to the group (read: taken to have status and authority relative to the group, at least with respect to this claim).

Comment author: Lumifer 25 November 2015 07:42:27PM *  0 points [-]

What would I do with it?

Bask in the glory? :-)

You might be an exception, but empirically speaking people tend to value their status in online communities, including communities members of which they will never meet in meatspace and which have no effect on their work/personal/etc. life.

Biologically hardwired instincts are hard to transcend :-/

Comment author: philh 26 November 2015 02:43:10PM *  1 point [-]

I don't understand your objection.

Using claim of immunity to status and authority games as evidence to assert a claim.

Which is to say, you are using a claim of immunity to status and authority games to assert status and authority.

Asserting a claim is not the same thing as asserting status and authority.

I'm not sure what you want from Ilya here. He seems to be describing his motivations in good faith. Do you think he's lying to gain status? Do you think he's telling the truth, but gaining status as a side effect, and he shouldn't do that?

Quick edit: Oh, I should probably have read the rest of the thread. I think I understand your objection now, but I disagree with it.

Comment author: CellBioGuy 24 November 2015 05:40:35PM *  2 points [-]

These are so much fun to read!

(snapshot times chosen more or less at random, and specific pages are what I consider the highlights)

https://web.archive.org/web/20010204095400/http://sysopmind.com/beyond.html
(contains links to everything below and much more)

https://web.archive.org/web/20010213215810/http://sysopmind.com/sing/plan.html (his original founding plans for the singularity institute, extremely amusing)

https://web.archive.org/web/20010606183250/http://sysopmind.com/singularity.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20101227203946/http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/wiki/So_You_Want_To_Be_A_Seed_AI_Programmer (some... exceptional quotes in here and you can follow links)

https://web.archive.org/web/20010309014808/http://sysopmind.com/eliezer.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20010202171200/http://sysopmind.com/algernon.html

More can be found poking around on web archive and youtube and vimeo. Even more via PM.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 24 November 2015 12:02:07AM 1 point [-]

I don't think Eliezer's changes in hubris level are what's interesting-- he's had some influence, and no on seems to think his earliest work is his best. It might make sense to find out what how his writing has changed over time.