5 ms·

I think EY's big contribution to the LessWrong/Rationalist cult/movement/ethos is writing the "Sequences," which purport to be a guide to training yourself to t

I think EY's big contribution to the LessWrong/Rationalist cult/movement/ethos is writing the "Sequences," which purport to be a guide to training yourself to think rationally. (https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/original-sequences https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/original-sequences) The rationalists are an interesting group. I like a lot of the vibe of the whole thing, but there is also some very weird navel gazing that has cropped up. It can be hard to differentiate from the good and the bad. I am overall a little surprised by the vitriol towards EY in this thread though. While I agree that the guy is somewhat shrill and his ideas are pretty out there, he really doesn't seem like a con artist from my standpoint. It seems to me that he is genuinely extremely concerned about AI alignment/risk, and his actions seem to make sense in that framework without needing to ascribe a bunch of weird and sinister motivations to him. Not professing agreement or disagreement with him on any particular thing, just my two cents.

polygamous_bat 4y ago
I understand your point, more or less, I just find it funny that people calling themselves "rationalists"/"objectivists"/whatever other funny name just keeps stacking up a bunch of "what if"s and freaking out about it. As somewhat of a cynical person, I also find it funny that > While I agree that the guy is somewhat shrill and his ideas are pretty out there, he really doesn't seem like a con artist from my standpoint. I've heard this exact same sentiment about another popular Effective Altruist in the past year. I will let the reader guess which one.
- archon1410 4y ago
  >"objectivists"/whatever other funny name just keeps stacking up a bunch of "what if"s and freaking out about it. The Objectivists I know hate hypotheticals and refuge to engage with them with the same dismissive tone used in your comment.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    The Objectivists I’ve encountered refuse to engage with lots of things, but still use hypotheticals themselves. They mostly phrase them as generalities with “When…” rather than with “If…”, but they are semantically equivalent.
- agentwiggles 4y ago
  > I've heard this exact same sentiment about another popular Effective Altruist in the past year. I will let the reader guess which one. I may be missing something, as I don't really follow this "community" besides reading the occasional Slate Star Codex post or whatever. But I don't see much ground for comparison here. SBF (who I assume you're referring to) was in much different position with regards to potential harm as a result of con man antics than EY is. (As far as I can tell). SBF was managing billions of dollars. EY is not. If SBF turns out to be a scammer, real people lose money. If EY is a scammer... then so what? He publishes a bunch of blog posts crying doom about AI that suddenly look less sincere? To what end? I can't see a good reason at this time for assuming his reasons are anything less than what he claims they are.
ajkjk 4y ago
Eh, I think the reason for his cult-leader status was for creating the whole community and being its, like, prophet. The sequences were just one of many things in that direction. I'm not surprised by the vitriol, though. He has got to be one of the most arrogant people alive, and people arrogantly writing as though they are world experts on everything when they are, like, dumb and wrong... is extremely irritating.

polygamous_bat 4y ago

I understand your point, more or less, I just find it funny that people calling themselves "rationalists"/"objectivists"/whatever other funny name just keeps stacking up a bunch of "what if"s and freaking out about it. As somewhat of a cynical person, I also find it funny that > While I agree that the guy is somewhat shrill and his ideas are pretty out there, he really doesn't seem like a con artist from my standpoint. I've heard this exact same sentiment about another popular Effective Altruist in the past year. I will let the reader guess which one.

archon1410 4y ago
>"objectivists"/whatever other funny name just keeps stacking up a bunch of "what if"s and freaking out about it. The Objectivists I know hate hypotheticals and refuge to engage with them with the same dismissive tone used in your comment.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  The Objectivists I’ve encountered refuse to engage with lots of things, but still use hypotheticals themselves. They mostly phrase them as generalities with “When…” rather than with “If…”, but they are semantically equivalent.
agentwiggles 4y ago
> I've heard this exact same sentiment about another popular Effective Altruist in the past year. I will let the reader guess which one. I may be missing something, as I don't really follow this "community" besides reading the occasional Slate Star Codex post or whatever. But I don't see much ground for comparison here. SBF (who I assume you're referring to) was in much different position with regards to potential harm as a result of con man antics than EY is. (As far as I can tell). SBF was managing billions of dollars. EY is not. If SBF turns out to be a scammer, real people lose money. If EY is a scammer... then so what? He publishes a bunch of blog posts crying doom about AI that suddenly look less sincere? To what end? I can't see a good reason at this time for assuming his reasons are anything less than what he claims they are.

ajkjk 4y ago

Eh, I think the reason for his cult-leader status was for creating the whole community and being its, like, prophet. The sequences were just one of many things in that direction. I'm not surprised by the vitriol, though. He has got to be one of the most arrogant people alive, and people arrogantly writing as though they are world experts on everything when they are, like, dumb and wrong... is extremely irritating.