4 ms·

The problem with LW is that the old-timer's confidence is pegged at 100% for non-controversial stuff (like Bayes' Theorem) and highly controversial stuff (like

The problem with LW is that the old-timer's confidence is pegged at 100% for non-controversial stuff (like Bayes' Theorem) and highly controversial stuff (like the inevitability of unfriendly AI). It's essentially a cult of personality around Eliezer Yudkowsky, with little dissent. They use the non-controversial value-add stuff to draw new members into the cult. Eliezer has stated in interviews that the most important thing you can do is help him on his research if you can, and otherwise to make as much money as possible to give to his research, save a bit for your living expense. Now he has dozens of people that agree with him completely, a few hundred that mostly agree with him, and thousands that think he's a pretty swell guy and don't realize the shady depths of the philosophy he's pushing.

kiba 14y ago
I thought it is well established in the lesswrong community that we shouldn't give money to Eliezer Yudkowsky until the Singularity Institute proves itself to be of value.
- jacoblyles 14y ago
  The prevailing ideas (AKA Eliezer's ideas) do change. They used to be for AI research before they were against it. I am too bothered by the groupthink to hang around for long periods of time. I get enough of it IRL.
  - FeepingCreature 14y ago
    I'm pretty sure he's still for AI research, he just realized he'd been irresponsible about it. I'd much rather people change their mind as they gain greater understanding, as long as they document the reasoning.
    - jacoblyles 14y ago
      It's just that it gives me the heebee-jeebees to see everybody change their mind together. Eliezer often cites a theorem from a mathematician that says that ideal rational agents can't disagree and applies it to normal conversation. In the LW circle this is used to bully people into conformity. No allowance is given for the time that it takes humans to think things through or negotiate on a set of priors based on their joint life experience. In practice at LW, it means that if you haven't conformed to a result that disturbs you within the course of a single conversation then you must be irrational. Because by Aumann's theorem rational agents will not remain in an undecided state. They really are a bunch of borg.
      - mquander 14y ago
        I hang around with a bunch of LW people both online and in real life, and I really don't think that I've ever seen anyone deploy the kind of rhetoric you're describing when arguing with someone. It sounds unreasonably dumb. On the other hand, I see a lot of examples of people being unusually polite and curious about people who disagree with them, and who try to specifically cultivate the ability to drill down to the root cause of arguments and learn as the result of a dispute.
CamperBob2 14y ago
So it's a highbrow version of Scientology, then?
- jacoblyles 14y ago
  It reminds me very strongly of the Objectivist cult. Similar personalities and faults.
mquander 14y ago
You may be interested in the results of a big voluntary annual survey here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/fp5/2012_survey_results/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/fp5/2012_survey_results/ It has some questions that do a reasonable job of surveying people's beliefs on transhumanisty and Yudkowsky-y stuff like AI, cryonics, and many-worlds. Going by the survey, the population is more heterogeneous than you give it credit for.

kiba 14y ago

I thought it is well established in the lesswrong community that we shouldn't give money to Eliezer Yudkowsky until the Singularity Institute proves itself to be of value.

jacoblyles 14y ago
The prevailing ideas (AKA Eliezer's ideas) do change. They used to be for AI research before they were against it. I am too bothered by the groupthink to hang around for long periods of time. I get enough of it IRL.
- FeepingCreature 14y ago
  I'm pretty sure he's still for AI research, he just realized he'd been irresponsible about it. I'd much rather people change their mind as they gain greater understanding, as long as they document the reasoning.
  - jacoblyles 14y ago
    It's just that it gives me the heebee-jeebees to see everybody change their mind together. Eliezer often cites a theorem from a mathematician that says that ideal rational agents can't disagree and applies it to normal conversation. In the LW circle this is used to bully people into conformity. No allowance is given for the time that it takes humans to think things through or negotiate on a set of priors based on their joint life experience. In practice at LW, it means that if you haven't conformed to a result that disturbs you within the course of a single conversation then you must be irrational. Because by Aumann's theorem rational agents will not remain in an undecided state. They really are a bunch of borg.
    - mquander 14y ago
      I hang around with a bunch of LW people both online and in real life, and I really don't think that I've ever seen anyone deploy the kind of rhetoric you're describing when arguing with someone. It sounds unreasonably dumb. On the other hand, I see a lot of examples of people being unusually polite and curious about people who disagree with them, and who try to specifically cultivate the ability to drill down to the root cause of arguments and learn as the result of a dispute.

CamperBob2 14y ago

So it's a highbrow version of Scientology, then?

jacoblyles 14y ago
It reminds me very strongly of the Objectivist cult. Similar personalities and faults.

mquander 14y ago

You may be interested in the results of a big voluntary annual survey here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/fp5/2012_survey_results/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/fp5/2012_survey_results/ It has some questions that do a reasonable job of surveying people's beliefs on transhumanisty and Yudkowsky-y stuff like AI, cryonics, and many-worlds. Going by the survey, the population is more heterogeneous than you give it credit for.