4 ms·

So you disagree with his style, not his substance, and even you admit he's getting things right. I didn't know tone policing/tone trolling was such an importan

by cbd1984 11y ago

So you disagree with his style, not his substance, and even you admit he's getting things right. I didn't know tone policing/tone trolling was such an important part of philosophical discourse.

pron 11y ago
> and even you admit he's getting things right. I said that I occasionally agree with his conclusions. I mostly don't. But I'm not the ultimate judge of correctness, and I can't give the final ruling on them one way or another (that's not how philosophy works). However: > I didn't know tone policing/tone trolling was such an important part of philosophical discourse. Not tone but process. Yudkowsky may be correct in the same way that the pope may be correct (BTW, I find both to occasionally raise a though-provoking issue), or both may inspire (different) people, but that makes neither of them philosophers because what they do isn't philosophy. I'll put it another way: your grandmother may make you soup when you're sick and it may (or may not) actually help you, but that doesn't mean she's practicing medicine. The mere discussion, however, of "tone policing/tone trolling" is very much in line with what Yudkowsky does, which may best be described as expressing a certain political ideology regarding science, philosophy, knowledge, public discourse etc.. Everyone, of course, is entitled to their opinions and their ideologies, but that alone is not enough to make them philosophers, even if they try to keep their arguments consistent.
- johann28 11y ago
  I also think that his obsession with the kinds of inverted reasoning, such as "anti-inductive markets" is serving an interest of his: by planting this meme in your head, you'll subconsciously apply it out of context, when his qualifications of reputation come up. He'll say "Oh but even if I had qualifications, you'd probably reject my claims, so I don't need qualifications". They (and his earlier co-author Robin Hanson) also like to reduce things to signaling, basically saying that education is just to show off and raise one's status by acquiring pieces of paper, but if you really want to get things done, it's more efficient to self-study and concentrate on the really important things, skipping all this mess that is education. So if you eat these ideas at the right time, you won't find anything suspicious about him lacking any reputation, any qualifications. He's trying to sell you the idea that he's so much above the ridiculous ideas of the mainstream that he doesn't need to go among them an get tested by them, he tries to sell you that this is just signalling, the way a really rich person doesn't need to show off expensive items, or a big dog doesn't need to bark as much. Another thing about the anti-inductive meme is that seeing the world thought these glasses makes you kind of paranoid. Because how can you know if the thing you conclude shouldn't be the exact opposite? You know, maybe the system figured out what you will think, it simulated you and now you are supposed to outsmart that system, etc. When in reality, the overwhelming majority of everyday things are straightforward and inductive and rarely go deeper than 1 or 2 levels of "simulating the other". But his focus on the superintelligent being makes you think subconsciously that this is the nature of the current world as well, and a lack of qualifications should actually be seen as a proof of skill, not as a counterevidence. Maybe you say nobody would think that, but I did, some years ago. I got sucked into his writings and I was gullible. Since then I have learned a lot from other sources and can see much better how he rips off previous ideas, repackages them and creates a crazy ideology.
  - Aljik 11y ago
    If you really ended up thinking like that I think that is more reflective of your personality/mind than Yudkowsky's writings. Like, I don't mean this to be insulting, but normal people don't end up paranoid and anxious and worrying about what levels people are playing at and thinking that super intelligent beings are the nature of the world, after reading LW. Normal people say "Huh thats cool" and it makes for fun dinner table talks and at best comes up in real life if you are a contestant on a game show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0qjK3TWZE8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0qjK3TWZE8 Yudkowsky isn't some devious mastermind trying to brainwash people into thinking wrong so he can. So he can what? Even if he was a devious mastermind who created a polemic work so as to get people to think wrong... what would his goal be?
    - johann30 11y ago
      I didn't end up actually paranoid, that's an exaggeration. But many people for whom this is the first encounter with these topics, do get confused and "brainwashed". Some people can't really understand the implications in the first place, so they of course won't be impacted. I don't have enough time now, but at some point I may try to summarize the specific patterns of thought that are most problematic in their treatment of counterfactuality, acausality, simulations, free will, anti-inductivity, signaling etc. I'm not saying he's devious. I think he probably believes what he says as far as I can tell or care. But it's irrelevant. And about normal people: there are writings scattered around the internet about similar experiences and there are probably more in private exchanges (as the posts themselves describe). I even read about things akin to support groups. Of course I shouldn't blow this out of proportion, we aren't talking about masses of people here.
      - Aljik 11y ago
        I'd be interested in reading this. You keep writing as if LW/Yudkowsky is very harmful,but you won't elaborate on what the danger is aside from "think wrong". Like if people were donating all their money to A.I because of the Basilisk, or killing themselves while gambling because they've taken many worlds too far, or something I could see why you would be so urgent to warn people away from Yudkowsky. What is you are so concerned with?
- cbd1984 11y ago
  > what they do isn't philosophy. It's more philosophical than what most philosophers do, as long as they dismiss people out of hand. Yudkowsky at least admits others have ideas worth engaging with.
scott_s 11y ago
That is a uncharitable caricature of pron's point. pron's main point was about methodology, not style. That is, pron is claiming that he is not rigorous. Since rigor is fundamental to practicing philosophy, it does cut to the substance of the work, not the style.

by cbd1984 11y ago

So you disagree with his style, not his substance, and even you admit he's getting things right. I didn't know tone policing/tone trolling was such an important part of philosophical discourse.

pron 11y ago

> and even you admit he's getting things right. I said that I occasionally agree with his conclusions. I mostly don't. But I'm not the ultimate judge of correctness, and I can't give the final ruling on them one way or another (that's not how philosophy works). However: > I didn't know tone policing/tone trolling was such an important part of philosophical discourse. Not tone but process. Yudkowsky may be correct in the same way that the pope may be correct (BTW, I find both to occasionally raise a though-provoking issue), or both may inspire (different) people, but that makes neither of them philosophers because what they do isn't philosophy. I'll put it another way: your grandmother may make you soup when you're sick and it may (or may not) actually help you, but that doesn't mean she's practicing medicine. The mere discussion, however, of "tone policing/tone trolling" is very much in line with what Yudkowsky does, which may best be described as expressing a certain political ideology regarding science, philosophy, knowledge, public discourse etc.. Everyone, of course, is entitled to their opinions and their ideologies, but that alone is not enough to make them philosophers, even if they try to keep their arguments consistent.

johann28 11y ago
I also think that his obsession with the kinds of inverted reasoning, such as "anti-inductive markets" is serving an interest of his: by planting this meme in your head, you'll subconsciously apply it out of context, when his qualifications of reputation come up. He'll say "Oh but even if I had qualifications, you'd probably reject my claims, so I don't need qualifications". They (and his earlier co-author Robin Hanson) also like to reduce things to signaling, basically saying that education is just to show off and raise one's status by acquiring pieces of paper, but if you really want to get things done, it's more efficient to self-study and concentrate on the really important things, skipping all this mess that is education. So if you eat these ideas at the right time, you won't find anything suspicious about him lacking any reputation, any qualifications. He's trying to sell you the idea that he's so much above the ridiculous ideas of the mainstream that he doesn't need to go among them an get tested by them, he tries to sell you that this is just signalling, the way a really rich person doesn't need to show off expensive items, or a big dog doesn't need to bark as much. Another thing about the anti-inductive meme is that seeing the world thought these glasses makes you kind of paranoid. Because how can you know if the thing you conclude shouldn't be the exact opposite? You know, maybe the system figured out what you will think, it simulated you and now you are supposed to outsmart that system, etc. When in reality, the overwhelming majority of everyday things are straightforward and inductive and rarely go deeper than 1 or 2 levels of "simulating the other". But his focus on the superintelligent being makes you think subconsciously that this is the nature of the current world as well, and a lack of qualifications should actually be seen as a proof of skill, not as a counterevidence. Maybe you say nobody would think that, but I did, some years ago. I got sucked into his writings and I was gullible. Since then I have learned a lot from other sources and can see much better how he rips off previous ideas, repackages them and creates a crazy ideology.
- Aljik 11y ago
  If you really ended up thinking like that I think that is more reflective of your personality/mind than Yudkowsky's writings. Like, I don't mean this to be insulting, but normal people don't end up paranoid and anxious and worrying about what levels people are playing at and thinking that super intelligent beings are the nature of the world, after reading LW. Normal people say "Huh thats cool" and it makes for fun dinner table talks and at best comes up in real life if you are a contestant on a game show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0qjK3TWZE8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0qjK3TWZE8 Yudkowsky isn't some devious mastermind trying to brainwash people into thinking wrong so he can. So he can what? Even if he was a devious mastermind who created a polemic work so as to get people to think wrong... what would his goal be?
  - johann30 11y ago
    I didn't end up actually paranoid, that's an exaggeration. But many people for whom this is the first encounter with these topics, do get confused and "brainwashed". Some people can't really understand the implications in the first place, so they of course won't be impacted. I don't have enough time now, but at some point I may try to summarize the specific patterns of thought that are most problematic in their treatment of counterfactuality, acausality, simulations, free will, anti-inductivity, signaling etc. I'm not saying he's devious. I think he probably believes what he says as far as I can tell or care. But it's irrelevant. And about normal people: there are writings scattered around the internet about similar experiences and there are probably more in private exchanges (as the posts themselves describe). I even read about things akin to support groups. Of course I shouldn't blow this out of proportion, we aren't talking about masses of people here.
    - Aljik 11y ago
      I'd be interested in reading this. You keep writing as if LW/Yudkowsky is very harmful,but you won't elaborate on what the danger is aside from "think wrong". Like if people were donating all their money to A.I because of the Basilisk, or killing themselves while gambling because they've taken many worlds too far, or something I could see why you would be so urgent to warn people away from Yudkowsky. What is you are so concerned with?
cbd1984 11y ago
> what they do isn't philosophy. It's more philosophical than what most philosophers do, as long as they dismiss people out of hand. Yudkowsky at least admits others have ideas worth engaging with.

scott_s 11y ago

That is a uncharitable caricature of pron's point. pron's main point was about methodology, not style. That is, pron is claiming that he is not rigorous. Since rigor is fundamental to practicing philosophy, it does cut to the substance of the work, not the style.