8 ms·

Hinton responded on Twitter: https://twitter.com/geoffreyhinton/status/1652993570721210372?t=XTb8Kk_hOlnz5R4RWOdUfw&s=19 https://twitter.com/geoffreyhinton/sta

Hinton responded on Twitter: https://twitter.com/geoffreyhinton/status/1652993570721210372?t=XTb8Kk_hOlnz5R4RWOdUfw&s=19 https://twitter.com/geoffreyhinton/status/165299357072121037...

dlkf 3y ago
Cade Metz is the same hack who tried to smear Scott Alexander. This guy is the personification of journalistic malpractice.
- jglamine 3y ago
  Yeah, I was confused because I felt like the article didnt do a good job of clearly stating Hilton's beliefs - it was meandering around. Felt off. Then I saw the Cade Metz byline at the end and became instantly sceptical of everything I had just read. Metz is more interested in pushing a nerative than reporting the truth. He doesn't outright lie, just heavily implys things and frames his articles in a misleading way.
  - cma 3y ago
    > He doesn't outright lie, just heavily implys things and frames his articles in a misleading way. Sounds like Scott's methods on neoreactionary and eugenics stuff.
- alphabetting 3y ago
  I have no clue but could be more a problem of his assignments and framing from NYT editors. His book on history of AI was very good.
- tivert 3y ago
  > Cade Metz is the same hack who tried to smear Scott Alexander. This guy is the personification of journalistic malpractice. He didn't "smear" Scott Alexander. That's just the hit-job framing pushed by Alexander's fans, who were mad he didn't write a puff piece and they couldn't just make up rules on about stuff on their websites (e.g. about using people's self-disclosed real names) and have the rest of the world be obligated to follow them.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    It went well beyond merely "not writing a puff piece". Among other things Metz claimed that Slate Star Codex espoused neo-reactionary views, despite Scott's repeated rebukes of that ideology.
  - red_admiral 3y ago
    As far as I remember, the controversy started like this: the person in question is called Scott Alexander Siskind (which he has said himself publicly in his first post on the new ACX). In his previous work as a psychiatrist as a hospital, he went by Scott Siskind (which seems to be the name he uses with family, on identity documents etc), whereas in rationalist circles and his old blog SSC he went by Scott Alexander. He has explained why it is a problem for a psychiatrist to have a known identity beyond the usual "blank slate", that his clients can project onto. Indeed, his real name being associated with his online one led to him having to leave his former job (albeit more "by mutual agreement" rather than "fired" as I understand). It seems that the NYT, despite having a "real names" policy, is more than willing to bend it when it is convenient to them (for example they are more than happy not to mention birth names of transgender people even if they haven't gone through a full legal name change process). But they weren't willing to do it in this case, just referring to "the rules". The cost of this was that Scott lost his job (although he now makes more on Substack than he used to as a full-time psychiatrist), and the benefit ... I really don't see what benefit there is for NYT readers to know the surname of Scott-the-psychiatrist, when the article was about Scott-the-rationalist.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  Scott Alexander needs no help in digging his own holes.
orzig 3y ago
Saving a click, because this basically invalidates the NYT headline: > In the NYT today, Cade Metz implies that I left Google so that I could criticize Google. Actually, I left so that I could talk about the dangers of AI without considering how this impacts Google. Google has acted very responsibly.
- d23 3y ago
  This seems roughly in line with the article. He left to talk about the dangers.
  - cbolton 3y ago
    This tweet is not at all in line with the article. From the article: > Dr. Hinton said he has quit his job at Google, where he has worked for more than decade and became one of the most respected voices in the field, so he can freely speak out about the risks of A.I. A part of him, he said, now regrets his life’s work. > Dr. Hinton, often called “the Godfather of A.I.,” did not sign either of those letters and said he did not want to publicly criticize Google or other companies until he had quit his job. As Hinton says in his tweet, this clearly implies that he left to be free to criticize Google. And the following quote is not really consistent with the other part of Hinton's tweet, that "Google has acted very responsibly": > Until last year, he said, Google acted as a “proper steward” for the technology, careful not to release something that might cause harm. But now that Microsoft has augmented its Bing search engine with a chatbot — challenging Google’s core business — Google is racing to deploy the same kind of technology. The tech giants are locked in a competition that might be impossible to stop, Dr. Hinton said.
    - d23 3y ago
      > said he did not want to publicly criticize Google or other companies until he had quit his job. This seems to me to be the only line in the article that is incorrect or incongruent with what he is now saying - specifically the use of “Google”. It’s about ~10 paragraphs in on a ~20 paragraph article (I’m eyeballing).
    - 3y ago

Hinton responded on Twitter: https://twitter.com/geoffreyhinton/status/1652993570721210372?t=XTb8Kk_hOlnz5R4RWOdUfw&s=19 https://twitter.com/geoffreyhinton/status/165299357072121037...

dlkf 3y ago

Cade Metz is the same hack who tried to smear Scott Alexander. This guy is the personification of journalistic malpractice.

jglamine 3y ago
Yeah, I was confused because I felt like the article didnt do a good job of clearly stating Hilton's beliefs - it was meandering around. Felt off. Then I saw the Cade Metz byline at the end and became instantly sceptical of everything I had just read. Metz is more interested in pushing a nerative than reporting the truth. He doesn't outright lie, just heavily implys things and frames his articles in a misleading way.
- cma 3y ago
  > He doesn't outright lie, just heavily implys things and frames his articles in a misleading way. Sounds like Scott's methods on neoreactionary and eugenics stuff.
alphabetting 3y ago
I have no clue but could be more a problem of his assignments and framing from NYT editors. His book on history of AI was very good.
tivert 3y ago
> Cade Metz is the same hack who tried to smear Scott Alexander. This guy is the personification of journalistic malpractice. He didn't "smear" Scott Alexander. That's just the hit-job framing pushed by Alexander's fans, who were mad he didn't write a puff piece and they couldn't just make up rules on about stuff on their websites (e.g. about using people's self-disclosed real names) and have the rest of the world be obligated to follow them.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  It went well beyond merely "not writing a puff piece". Among other things Metz claimed that Slate Star Codex espoused neo-reactionary views, despite Scott's repeated rebukes of that ideology.
- red_admiral 3y ago
  As far as I remember, the controversy started like this: the person in question is called Scott Alexander Siskind (which he has said himself publicly in his first post on the new ACX). In his previous work as a psychiatrist as a hospital, he went by Scott Siskind (which seems to be the name he uses with family, on identity documents etc), whereas in rationalist circles and his old blog SSC he went by Scott Alexander. He has explained why it is a problem for a psychiatrist to have a known identity beyond the usual "blank slate", that his clients can project onto. Indeed, his real name being associated with his online one led to him having to leave his former job (albeit more "by mutual agreement" rather than "fired" as I understand). It seems that the NYT, despite having a "real names" policy, is more than willing to bend it when it is convenient to them (for example they are more than happy not to mention birth names of transgender people even if they haven't gone through a full legal name change process). But they weren't willing to do it in this case, just referring to "the rules". The cost of this was that Scott lost his job (although he now makes more on Substack than he used to as a full-time psychiatrist), and the benefit ... I really don't see what benefit there is for NYT readers to know the surname of Scott-the-psychiatrist, when the article was about Scott-the-rationalist.
whimsicalism 3y ago
Scott Alexander needs no help in digging his own holes.

orzig 3y ago

Saving a click, because this basically invalidates the NYT headline: > In the NYT today, Cade Metz implies that I left Google so that I could criticize Google. Actually, I left so that I could talk about the dangers of AI without considering how this impacts Google. Google has acted very responsibly.

d23 3y ago
This seems roughly in line with the article. He left to talk about the dangers.
- cbolton 3y ago
  This tweet is not at all in line with the article. From the article: > Dr. Hinton said he has quit his job at Google, where he has worked for more than decade and became one of the most respected voices in the field, so he can freely speak out about the risks of A.I. A part of him, he said, now regrets his life’s work. > Dr. Hinton, often called “the Godfather of A.I.,” did not sign either of those letters and said he did not want to publicly criticize Google or other companies until he had quit his job. As Hinton says in his tweet, this clearly implies that he left to be free to criticize Google. And the following quote is not really consistent with the other part of Hinton's tweet, that "Google has acted very responsibly": > Until last year, he said, Google acted as a “proper steward” for the technology, careful not to release something that might cause harm. But now that Microsoft has augmented its Bing search engine with a chatbot — challenging Google’s core business — Google is racing to deploy the same kind of technology. The tech giants are locked in a competition that might be impossible to stop, Dr. Hinton said.
  - d23 3y ago
    > said he did not want to publicly criticize Google or other companies until he had quit his job. This seems to me to be the only line in the article that is incorrect or incongruent with what he is now saying - specifically the use of “Google”. It’s about ~10 paragraphs in on a ~20 paragraph article (I’m eyeballing).
  - 3y ago