= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
When I read the original quote, I noted the conspicuous absence of any kind of positive assertion that the speaker is immune from those problems, and I read it as cautioning us against thinking that we are not similarly wrong about some of those very problems and other important problems that we are blind to.
Did you read it in the context of the atheist blog post Eliezer linked to? I agree that the quote was possibly meant to be cautionary, but I think it was primarily meant to show that believing in things 200 years old is generally not a good idea. Maybe I misunderstood the point of the post, though; the cautionary value is a more useful interpretation for us aspiring rationalists, and 'don't put faith in ancient wisdom' is rather simple advice by comparison. Because of that, context be damned (even if I did interpret it as was meant), I'm going to switch to your interpretation. :)
As are many smart people within the USA, obviously, or were you being sarcastic and trying to suggest that the original quote somehow implies a belief that the USA is immune from those problems?
I think he was being sarcastic and trying to suggest that the original quote failed to take note that everyone thinks they are immune from those problems, including the person who decided the past was 'wrong' about them. I'm also pretty sure cousin_it is Russian, if that's relevant. The USA thing was just a tasteful addition, the way I see it. I laughed. (His use of an exclamation point and a look at the top contributors list on the right also indicate sarcasm.)
Edit: I agree with Nick below. It was just a joke. Which I enjoyed.
I don't see how this reveals his motive at all. He could easily be a person motivated to make the best contributions to science as he can, for entirely altruistic reasons. His reasoning was that he could make better contributions elsewhere, and it's entirely plausible for him to have left the field for ultimately altruistic, purely non-selfish reasons.
And what is it about selfishness exactly that is so bad?
"the quality of being selfish, the condition of habitually putting one's own interests before those of others" - wiktionary
I can imagine a super giant mega list of situations where that would be bad, even if selfishness is often a good thing. There's a reason 'selfishness' has negative connotations.
But would Eliezer view it as that durn good (i.e. it being a tragedy that people die without reading it) if it were just entertaining fluff with no insights to AI and rationality?
I'm not Eliezer, and perhaps not being an AGI researcher means that my answer is irrelevant, but I think that things can have a deep aesthetic value or meaning from which one could gain insights into things more important than AI or rationality. One of these things may be the 'something to protect' that Eliezer wrote about. Others may be intrinsic values to discover, to give your rationality purpose. If I could only keep one of a copy of the Gospels of Buddha or a copy of MITECS, I would keep the Gospels of Buddha, because it reminds me of the importance of terminal values like compassion. When I read GEB the ideas of interconnectedness, of patterns, and of meaning all left me with a clearer thought process than did reading Eliezer's short paper on Coherent Extrapolated Volition, which was enjoyable but just didn't seem to resonate in the same way. Calling these things 'entertaining fluff' may be losing sight of Eliezer's 11th virtue: "The Art must have a purpose other than itself, or it collapses into infinite recursion."
That is all, of course, my humble opinion. Maybe having everyone read about and understand the dangers of black swans and unfriendly AI would be more productive than having them read about and understand the values of compassion and altruism; for if people do not understand the former, there may be no world left for the latter.
By the way, if you haven't already viewed it, Michael Nielsen's talk at the singularity summit is fascinating: Quantum Computing: What It Is, What It Is Not, What We Have Yet to Learn.
Ah, thanks for the link. The only summit video I've seen before was Jurgen Schmidhuber's, perhaps I should watch more of 'em.
In response to
Open Thread: November 2009
An interesting site I just stumbled upon:
They have huge lists of biases, techniques, explanations, and other stuff, with short summaries and longer articles.
Here's the results from typing in "bias" into their search bar.
A quick search for "changingminds" in LW's search bar shows that noone has mentioned this site before on LW.
Is this site of any use to anyone here?
And should I repost this message to next month's open thread, since not many people will notice it in this month's open thread?
I would repost this in the next open thread, it's not like anyone would get annoyed at the double post (I think), and that site looks like it would interest a lot of people.
In response to
Open Thread: November 2009
Perhaps there should be an 'Open Thread' link between 'Top' and 'Comments' above, so that people could get to it easily. If we're going to have an open thread, we might as well make it accessible.
Anyways, I was looking around Amazon for a book on axiology, and I started to wonder: when it comes to fields that are advancing, but not at a 'significant pace', is it better to buy older books (as they've passed the test of time) or newer ones (as they may have improved on the older books and include new info)? My intuition tells me it's better to buy newer books.
Maybe there is some merit to joining Mensa after all?
Do you like debating? That is, do you like throwing about very clever non-sequiturs and a whole bunch of straw men to prove your high status amongst a tribe of high IQ monkeys?
I've let my membership lapse. I keep in touch with some of the guys to play games with but the MENSA around here is mostly an online thing and decidedly inferior to lesswrong as far as intellectual stimulation goes. Although I must admit some of the Mensa guys were great to get business and professional advice from.
Well, if the people spitting out the clever non-sequiturs have charming British accents, then possibly. Otherwise, no... is Mensa about 'debating', normally? I always figured it'd be more of a casual social meet-up. But even then I suppose it could quickly dissolve into a mere signalling competition, or a 'debate'.
You're a creationist?! I refuse to speak to you.
Creationists I can accept. Ardent 'qualia' and 'philosophical zombie' advocates on the other hand I will not speak with. Creationists often acknowledge that their beliefs are based on faith. 'Qualia' folks are more likely to claim philosophical or intellectual authority, invoking my eternal contempt. This ties back in with your original point: it's about having intellectual conversations. For me at least it is those encroaching on intellectual territory in particular that must be held to higher standards.
That's a good point. I've never actually interacted with someone in real life that even knew what philosophical zombies were, so my 'intellectual' conversations take place along the lines of 'atheism versus theism', sadly. Maybe there is some merit to joining Mensa after all?
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I hadn't clicked through to read the original, but having just done so, I note that the very next paragraph after the given quote is:
Which doesn't exactly smack of over-confidence and American arrogance to my ear.
ETA: also, from things he said elsewhere in the essay, it seems likely to me that he had in mind more than "a few centuries" in the essay, despite the words in the quote, since he distinguishes again and again between pre-scientific and scientific ways of investigating and understanding the world.
Oh jeeze, how did I miss that? Thanks for taking the time to enlighten me. About the ETA, I noticed that too, which may be relevant to another discussion I saw nested under the original quotation...