5 ms·

I think that's a big part of the disconnect. Unless you are a devotee of EY, you generally don't "get" him. I suspect that it's because he mostly operates in th

I think that's a big part of the disconnect. Unless you are a devotee of EY, you generally don't "get" him. I suspect that it's because he mostly operates in the echo chamber that is the "less wrong" community. In short, he generally does not get credit for what he knows and understands because he cannot communicate clearly with people who do not already know and understand his philosophy. Said another way, if you can't explain things to people unless they already understand you, then you can't explain things to people.

noobiemcfoob 11y ago
Yes, yes and more yes. I love his ideas and thoughts on many topics, but it always comes across as the person who was too busy being "brilliant" to learn how to interface well with the broader society. The sad part is that he really is brilliant.
- armitron 11y ago
  No he's not, he's just skilled at manipulating people's perceptions of him based on a narrow set of premises that he introduced. Go through his non-philosophical papers and point to one thing in there that's brilliant. His miniscule technical output also seems to agree with this. I weep for the world that considers people like Yudkowsky brilliant.
  - noobiemcfoob 11y ago
    There are many definitions for "brilliant", though most of them heavily involve philosophy from my perspective. The easiest example of his work that I'd describe as brilliant is HPMOR. It is a story that makes the Harry Potter world not just bearable but beautiful and lively. There are portions where the philosophy comes on so thick as to disrupt the story, but on the whole it is a beautiful work. Reading it is how I first discovered EY.
    - p1esk 11y ago
      I haven't read HPMOR, and I haven't read Harry Potter books, but I watched the movies, and I think HP world is beautiful as is. What makes it unbearable for you?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
rdbcasillas 11y ago
Point taken. But there are some complex ideas that just need some amount of effort from the reader in order to "get" them. I don't know what is the right balance but if you are being introduced to new ideas, introduction of those ideas will also bring some vocabulary that you will (at least initially) be uncomfortable with. I guess I want to see someone communicate the ideas on less wrong in a simpler way without dumbing down or ignoring the nuances.
- greenrd 11y ago
  I'm amused at the irony of users on a site devoted to technology, many of whom are probably software engineers, complaining about obscure jargon...
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
I don't get him at all. To me he looks like a Randian dilettante folk philosopher, with a minimal track record of practical achievement. His AI arguments seem to be of the "If you assume an AGI singularity is possible..." kind, which is suspiciously like assuming god exists, for completely arbitrary values of god, and then debating whether or not he cares enough to hate you. Most software today sucks so badly it can't tie its own shoelaces without poking itself in the brain and falling over. How do we know this isn't a general feature of software? Has there ever been a 100% bullet-proof non-trivial software system? Is there anything in the history of CS which implies that such a system is possible? So suggesting that by (say) 2066 software will not only stop sucking but will be able to meta-improve itself with bug-free perfection to the point where it can eat the world seems curiously ungrounded.
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  You're right about the quality. But in addition AI, as we build it today, is task-oriented, not personality-oriented. People are trying to build cars that drives themselves where directed, not cars that decide whether or not they feel like driving people around at all. Now, maybe it's possible that a task-oriented AI will at some point develop a personality. But there is no evidence that such a thing is possible. The "real life" personalities we observe in nature--ourselves--did not evolve from task-oriented machinery. It was the opposite: personality and will is observable in even simple animals; a beetle directs its own actions and tries above all else to preserve its own life. No one sets a task for it. Where does a beetle get that self-direction? Well, what is life itself? Where did it come from? We find ourselves in very deep waters; the depths of which I think AI-fearing folks don't seem to appreciate.
  - greenrd 11y ago
    I don't think it is the case that "AI-fearing folks" like myself don't appreciate what the alleged difficulties of building AGI might be. Rather, the burden of proof is on you, the doubters, to show that we need to spend no money at all on such risks, despite the magnitude of the harm that would be caused if we're right and nothing is done about the risks.

noobiemcfoob 11y ago

Yes, yes and more yes. I love his ideas and thoughts on many topics, but it always comes across as the person who was too busy being "brilliant" to learn how to interface well with the broader society. The sad part is that he really is brilliant.

armitron 11y ago
No he's not, he's just skilled at manipulating people's perceptions of him based on a narrow set of premises that he introduced. Go through his non-philosophical papers and point to one thing in there that's brilliant. His miniscule technical output also seems to agree with this. I weep for the world that considers people like Yudkowsky brilliant.
- noobiemcfoob 11y ago
  There are many definitions for "brilliant", though most of them heavily involve philosophy from my perspective. The easiest example of his work that I'd describe as brilliant is HPMOR. It is a story that makes the Harry Potter world not just bearable but beautiful and lively. There are portions where the philosophy comes on so thick as to disrupt the story, but on the whole it is a beautiful work. Reading it is how I first discovered EY.
  - p1esk 11y ago
    I haven't read HPMOR, and I haven't read Harry Potter books, but I watched the movies, and I think HP world is beautiful as is. What makes it unbearable for you?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

rdbcasillas 11y ago

Point taken. But there are some complex ideas that just need some amount of effort from the reader in order to "get" them. I don't know what is the right balance but if you are being introduced to new ideas, introduction of those ideas will also bring some vocabulary that you will (at least initially) be uncomfortable with. I guess I want to see someone communicate the ideas on less wrong in a simpler way without dumbing down or ignoring the nuances.

greenrd 11y ago
I'm amused at the irony of users on a site devoted to technology, many of whom are probably software engineers, complaining about obscure jargon...

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago

I don't get him at all. To me he looks like a Randian dilettante folk philosopher, with a minimal track record of practical achievement. His AI arguments seem to be of the "If you assume an AGI singularity is possible..." kind, which is suspiciously like assuming god exists, for completely arbitrary values of god, and then debating whether or not he cares enough to hate you. Most software today sucks so badly it can't tie its own shoelaces without poking itself in the brain and falling over. How do we know this isn't a general feature of software? Has there ever been a 100% bullet-proof non-trivial software system? Is there anything in the history of CS which implies that such a system is possible? So suggesting that by (say) 2066 software will not only stop sucking but will be able to meta-improve itself with bug-free perfection to the point where it can eat the world seems curiously ungrounded.

snowwrestler 11y ago
You're right about the quality. But in addition AI, as we build it today, is task-oriented, not personality-oriented. People are trying to build cars that drives themselves where directed, not cars that decide whether or not they feel like driving people around at all. Now, maybe it's possible that a task-oriented AI will at some point develop a personality. But there is no evidence that such a thing is possible. The "real life" personalities we observe in nature--ourselves--did not evolve from task-oriented machinery. It was the opposite: personality and will is observable in even simple animals; a beetle directs its own actions and tries above all else to preserve its own life. No one sets a task for it. Where does a beetle get that self-direction? Well, what is life itself? Where did it come from? We find ourselves in very deep waters; the depths of which I think AI-fearing folks don't seem to appreciate.
- greenrd 11y ago
  I don't think it is the case that "AI-fearing folks" like myself don't appreciate what the alleged difficulties of building AGI might be. Rather, the burden of proof is on you, the doubters, to show that we need to spend no money at all on such risks, despite the magnitude of the harm that would be caused if we're right and nothing is done about the risks.