5 ms·

> Edit: if someone can explain why this was instantly downvoted I would genuinely appreciate knowing where I went wrong here Alluding to some conversation whic

by gwern 1y ago

> Edit: if someone can explain why this was instantly downvoted I would genuinely appreciate knowing where I went wrong here Alluding to some conversation which supposedly demonstrates my unsuitability for such a role, while pointedly refusing to link it or describe it any detail which could be judged (to the point where I, the person in question, have no idea what misdeeds you are talking about), is not credible and reeks of, one might say, 'very unconstructive crap-on criticism', and people might be understandably reluctant to upvote it. If you think my criticisms were that bad, then link the tweets in question - and, since my account is currently locked, I will happily copy them all out here so everyone can read them and judge for themselves. I am not afraid.

h0p3 1y ago
I can appreciate your defending yourself here, and you should. You're obviously suitable for the role, and I think folks will be incredibly lucky to learn from you. I'm not saying your criticisms are that bad (far from it), but I can't say I think you're always as careful as you should be in that role (which I also suggest you're sometimes too quick to assign yourself) either, sir. If you're asking for bug reports, this is one.
- adiabatty 1y ago
  I’ve helped friends with their writing. If _I_ got this bit of feedback I wouldn’t know what to make of it.
  - h0p3 1y ago
    Thank you for telling me.
  - velcrovan 1y ago
    Sometimes, when the nature of someone's problem is such that it also prevents them from even seeing or understanding it, the best you can do is signal to them that a problem exists and see whether they care enough to try and understand it further.
throwanem 1y ago
It's just that you come off as a high-handed, unbearable jerk even by my standards, which is saying a really enormous amount. Everyone thinks you're an asshole because you act like an asshole, and some people are afraid of you because of that and the social power they understand you to have, ie the ability to effectively blacklist people from a weird, unpleasant, mostly pointless, but highly remunerative niche labor market providing an expedited path to US citizenship which is still probably a few years out from its inevitable collapse in value. (You're not really special in this, of course; your pal Scott also has it, for example. So do lots of others.) I suppose you have some justification for all of that, but I wouldn't really know; without the aid of either preternatural patience or some sort of pharmaceutical support that Shulgin would have no doubt highly favored, I've always found you so needlessly and interminably self-indulgent in prose as to consider it must be really fortunate for your sake you had firmly established your reputation before the advent of true conversational AI. Certainly I don't expect you to change your whole personality at this late date. I doubt you can even very reliably restrain yourself from indulging it.
- gjm11 1y ago
  > the ability to effectively blacklist people from a weird, unpleasant, mostly pointless, but highly remunerative niche labor market providing an expedited path to US citizenship Huh?
velcrovan 1y ago
Since you offered: https://x.com/gwern/status/1235977354918404096 https://x.com/gwern/status/1235977354918404096 — though it seems like the intermediate commenter I mentioned has also either locked or deleted their tweets. …But responding as though this is an attack to be countered and defeated further illustrates why I had doubts about your suitability as a creative advisor. It may be the only way you _know how_ to interpret any reference to yourself or anything anyone might compare to your work. It doesn't mean you're a bad person. You just may not have the tools to draw out the best of other people’s creative skill. And then again, maybe you do, and I just caught you on two separate really bad days five years apart.
- gjm11 1y ago
  "Cet animal est très méchant, Quand on l'attaque il se défend." Saying in public that someone "replied with a bunch of very unconstructive crap-on criticism" and "[m]aybe he's different in person but based on that interaction I have no desire to find out" is, by any reasonable standards, an attack on that person, and if that person doubts your description it is perfectly reasonable for them to object. (That doesn't mean you're in the wrong and gwern's in the right, of course. It could well be that your account of things is entirely correct and gwern was gratuitously dickish to you, in which case it's fair enough to point it out. Something can be fair and correct and also a personal attack that it's reasonable to respond to by trying to counter it.)
  - voidhorse 1y ago
    > by any reasonable standards, an attack on that person huh? If I said "gwern is a worthless hack" or if I said "gwern is just too stupid to give anybody advice" without any presentations of evidence toward this, I could reasonably consider those attacks. The stuff you quoted doesn't read as an "attack" to me. Rather, it is a claim that someone did something which may or may not be true, and, under the presumption that it is true , a claim about how the person on the receiving end felt. I don't see how that constitutes an "attack"—maybe an accusation, but certainly not an attack. I have little more than a passing knowledge of gwern, but I would say that the response in this thread does in fact give me doubt that they are really prepared to stand in an advisory role toward hopeful strangers. If we are too focused on our own fragile egos we can't muster the focus that truly recognizing the distinct potential in others and championing them requires. Often the right thing to do when facing feedback in an advisory role is not to be immediately defensive and demand evidence, even if you feel the claims may be illegitimate. Instead you need to approach with an open posture, hear the persons concerns, show willingness to do better in case you were in fact in the wrong, and only then, if necessary, voice your objection to try and reach a point of re-established harmony. But this just goes to show you the problems entailed when you elect participants not on relevant experience but merely on popularity. I assume gwern is probably a fantastic blogger, but being a fantastic blogger and being a fantastic advisor for would-be-bloggers are two different things. Maybe gwern has experience doing this sort of thing, I don't know, but I wouldn't assume so given the response in this thread. A more seasoned bearer of fame would know it would be best not to even respond in this particular case, probably (as you are about to enter an environment in which people need to feel psychologically safe with you and seeing immediate defensiveness in response to direct critique or disagreement does not send the right signal).

by gwern 1y ago

h0p3 1y ago

I can appreciate your defending yourself here, and you should. You're obviously suitable for the role, and I think folks will be incredibly lucky to learn from you. I'm not saying your criticisms are that bad (far from it), but I can't say I think you're always as careful as you should be in that role (which I also suggest you're sometimes too quick to assign yourself) either, sir. If you're asking for bug reports, this is one.

adiabatty 1y ago
I’ve helped friends with their writing. If _I_ got this bit of feedback I wouldn’t know what to make of it.
- h0p3 1y ago
  Thank you for telling me.
- velcrovan 1y ago
  Sometimes, when the nature of someone's problem is such that it also prevents them from even seeing or understanding it, the best you can do is signal to them that a problem exists and see whether they care enough to try and understand it further.

throwanem 1y ago

It's just that you come off as a high-handed, unbearable jerk even by my standards, which is saying a really enormous amount. Everyone thinks you're an asshole because you act like an asshole, and some people are afraid of you because of that and the social power they understand you to have, ie the ability to effectively blacklist people from a weird, unpleasant, mostly pointless, but highly remunerative niche labor market providing an expedited path to US citizenship which is still probably a few years out from its inevitable collapse in value. (You're not really special in this, of course; your pal Scott also has it, for example. So do lots of others.) I suppose you have some justification for all of that, but I wouldn't really know; without the aid of either preternatural patience or some sort of pharmaceutical support that Shulgin would have no doubt highly favored, I've always found you so needlessly and interminably self-indulgent in prose as to consider it must be really fortunate for your sake you had firmly established your reputation before the advent of true conversational AI. Certainly I don't expect you to change your whole personality at this late date. I doubt you can even very reliably restrain yourself from indulging it.

gjm11 1y ago
> the ability to effectively blacklist people from a weird, unpleasant, mostly pointless, but highly remunerative niche labor market providing an expedited path to US citizenship Huh?

velcrovan 1y ago

Since you offered: https://x.com/gwern/status/1235977354918404096 https://x.com/gwern/status/1235977354918404096 — though it seems like the intermediate commenter I mentioned has also either locked or deleted their tweets. …But responding as though this is an attack to be countered and defeated further illustrates why I had doubts about your suitability as a creative advisor. It may be the only way you _know how_ to interpret any reference to yourself or anything anyone might compare to your work. It doesn't mean you're a bad person. You just may not have the tools to draw out the best of other people’s creative skill. And then again, maybe you do, and I just caught you on two separate really bad days five years apart.

gjm11 1y ago
"Cet animal est très méchant, Quand on l'attaque il se défend." Saying in public that someone "replied with a bunch of very unconstructive crap-on criticism" and "[m]aybe he's different in person but based on that interaction I have no desire to find out" is, by any reasonable standards, an attack on that person, and if that person doubts your description it is perfectly reasonable for them to object. (That doesn't mean you're in the wrong and gwern's in the right, of course. It could well be that your account of things is entirely correct and gwern was gratuitously dickish to you, in which case it's fair enough to point it out. Something can be fair and correct and also a personal attack that it's reasonable to respond to by trying to counter it.)
- voidhorse 1y ago
  > by any reasonable standards, an attack on that person huh? If I said "gwern is a worthless hack" or if I said "gwern is just too stupid to give anybody advice" without any presentations of evidence toward this, I could reasonably consider those attacks. The stuff you quoted doesn't read as an "attack" to me. Rather, it is a claim that someone did something which may or may not be true, and, under the presumption that it is true , a claim about how the person on the receiving end felt. I don't see how that constitutes an "attack"—maybe an accusation, but certainly not an attack. I have little more than a passing knowledge of gwern, but I would say that the response in this thread does in fact give me doubt that they are really prepared to stand in an advisory role toward hopeful strangers. If we are too focused on our own fragile egos we can't muster the focus that truly recognizing the distinct potential in others and championing them requires. Often the right thing to do when facing feedback in an advisory role is not to be immediately defensive and demand evidence, even if you feel the claims may be illegitimate. Instead you need to approach with an open posture, hear the persons concerns, show willingness to do better in case you were in fact in the wrong, and only then, if necessary, voice your objection to try and reach a point of re-established harmony. But this just goes to show you the problems entailed when you elect participants not on relevant experience but merely on popularity. I assume gwern is probably a fantastic blogger, but being a fantastic blogger and being a fantastic advisor for would-be-bloggers are two different things. Maybe gwern has experience doing this sort of thing, I don't know, but I wouldn't assume so given the response in this thread. A more seasoned bearer of fame would know it would be best not to even respond in this particular case, probably (as you are about to enter an environment in which people need to feel psychologically safe with you and seeing immediate defensiveness in response to direct critique or disagreement does not send the right signal).