6 ms·

I'm seriously surprised at how many people here are fans of Yudkowsky, given his lack of any real productive output beyond thought experiments and fanfiction, t

by zyxley 12y ago

I'm seriously surprised at how many people here are fans of Yudkowsky, given his lack of any real productive output beyond thought experiments and fanfiction, the distinctly weird stuff he judges as right by taking his philosophy to the extremes (e.g. "it's better for one person to be tortured for fifty years than for an extremely large number of people to each get a speck of dust in their eye"), and the way he treats certain fringe positions as absolutely true despite the lack of any solid evidence to support them (for example, many-worlds theory).

kissickas 12y ago
I haven't read all of the "Sequences," nor am I familiar with most details of the Less-Wrong-mindset's idiosyncrasies. However, I just re-read the whole book and I'm not sure either of those concepts have any bearing on this work. There is a bit of assertion that "timeless physics" is representative of true reality, but my reaction was to look it up and find that it's an interesting fringe theory. For all I know, EY doesn't even assert that same theory's truth. Nothing harmful in sparking curiosity, especially in things such as statistics and logical biases, which is where HPMOR puts its emphasis.
- davidgerard 12y ago
  He does assert it, then assume its truth in later pieces. http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_Quantum_Physics_Sequence#Timeless_Physics http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_Quantum_Physics_Sequence#...
  - kissickas 12y ago
    Interesting. I still have no problem with it, of course, buttressed by my quick glance at that page to see, at the very top: Warning: The central idea in today's post is taken seriously by serious physicists; but it is not experimentally proven and is not taught as standard physics. Today's post draws heavily on the work of the physicist Julian Barbour, and contains diagrams stolen and/or modified from his book "The End of Time". However, some of the arguments here are of my own devising, and Barbour might(?) not agree with them.
    - davidgerard 12y ago
      Yeah. Despite the disclaimer, he then goes on to assume it's literally true. And, for relevance to this post, he does so in the story as well, in Chapter 28. su3su2u1 (who is an actual physicist) discusses the problem in http://su3su2u1.tumblr.com/post/98526012853/chapter-28-hacking-science-map-territory http://su3su2u1.tumblr.com/post/98526012853/chapter-28-hacki... : > There is no “true math of quantum mechanics.” [...] These are different mathematical formulations, over different spaces, that are completely equivalent. > What Hariezer is doing here isn’t separating the map and the territory, its reifying one particular map (configuration space)! >I also find it amusing, in a physics elitist sort of way (sorry for the condescension) that Yudkowsky picks non-relativistic quantum mechanics as the final, ultimate reality. Instead of describing or even mentioning quantum field theory, which is the most low-level theory we (we being science) know of, Yudkowsky picks non-relativistic quantum mechanics, the most low-level theory HE knows. > So this is more bad pedagogy: timeless physics isn’t even a map, it's the idea of a map. [...] It seems very odd to just toss in a somewhat obscure idea as the pinnacle of physics.
Udo 12y ago
> I'm seriously surprised at how many people here are fans of Yudkowsky In my (admittedly extremely limited) exposure to him as a person through videos of his talks and some of his transhumanist writing, I didn't really get the impression that he's anything but a very nice and gifted person. So I think this practice of judging or dismissing entire lives by applying a simplistic theme is an antipattern, and this is true here, too. There's a reason why ad hominem attacks are generally frowned-upon. Yes, I personally found the certainty with which several conclusions are asserted as universal truths on LessWrong in general offputting at times, especially when used in conjunction with the Rationality label, insidiously implying any other analyses of the subject matter would be inherently irrational. However, some subjectively bogus tenets notwithstanding, I still think it's a valiant and intellectually stimulating attempt at building a new philosophical framework which could potentially keep up with science and future human development. At the very least LessWrong Rationality is a good basis for an ongoing discourse on the subject, and at its best it demonstrates a unique exploration of ethics and, indeed, rationality. You may argue most or even all of this framework is lifted from earlier philosophical and scientific achievements, but in some areas standing on the shoulders of giants is actually a good sign you're in the right place.
- davidgerard 12y ago
  >You may argue most or even all of this framework is lifted from earlier philosophical and scientific achievements, but in some areas standing on the shoulders of giants is actually a good sign you're in the right place. The good bits are not original and the original bits are not good. The problem is that LessWrong has a habit of neologism - so EY will use his own term for something ("fallacy of gray" is one example - known for 2000 years as the "continuum fallacy"), then his young readers, who have met whatever it is for the first time ever, will think his work is much more original and significant than it is 'cos they can't find his term for it. This cuts them off from 2000 years of thinking on the topic and increases LW's halo effect.
  - coryfklein 12y ago
    What about people like me that would never have learned about the "continuum fallacy" if it weren't for Eliezer's willingness to stoop to my level and explain things like I'm 5 (or, more accurately, like I'm a fan of Harry Potter)? I personally don't care one bit if the good bits aren't original. They are approachable, and nobody else has done that for me. So I applaud Eliezer and his efforts, regardless of whether or not he has broken ground philosophically.
skybrian 12y ago
It's not so hard to explain: he writes well and generally has something interesting to say. This is more than enough to keep people reading. That doesn't mean everything he writes stands up, but he's smart enough that you have to think a while about what might be wrong with his arguments, and that's entertainment enough.
endtime 12y ago
I'm seriously unsurprised to find the token why-does-anyone-like-Yudkowsky-he-doesn't-have-a-PhD-and-hasn't-even-saved-the-world-yet criticism in a thread about his Harry Potter fan fiction. He's a great writer, and that should be more than enough for the purposes of recommending a thing he wrote.
- zyxley 12y ago
  I left this out from the parent post because it's a subjective judgment, but I absolutely disagree that he's a "great" writer, or even anything really more than "serviceable" at best.
  - jomohke 12y ago
    Can you recommend some alternative writers that fill the role better? I think his writing has two particular things going for it: - He explains concepts clearly with understandable examples. - He presents concepts that aren't (or weren't) well known outside of academia to a wider audience.
    - zyxley 12y ago
      "Scientific parable fiction" is a pretty narrow genre (though I'd personally argue that Yudkowsky does a pretty poor job of it - for example, Harry constantly assuming things without testing them and just happening to be right because the author says so). One that does come to mind is: https://www.fanfiction.net/u/4976703/alexanderwales https://www.fanfiction.net/u/4976703/alexanderwales alexanderwales writes relatively short, punchy stories that explore specific academic and narrative themes, and, importantly, generally work extremely very well as stories even if you discount the thought experiment aspects.
      - endtime 12y ago
        I really liked The Last Christmas and The Metropolitan Man (A Bluer Shade of White felt a little cliched/predictable) and second the recommendation.
MichaelGG 12y ago
>.g. "it's better for one person to be tortured for fifty years than for an extremely large number of people to each get a speck of dust in their eye"), The number in question was 3^^^3 using Knuth's Up Arrow Notation. As he explains, that's a lot of people: (3^(3^(3^(... 7625597484987 times ...)))). If we decide that one person being tortured for 50 years is worth a quick blink by all those other people, then a still tiny amount of people (say, 7625597484987) being tortured would be worth everyone else blinking furiously for their entire lives. So it's not about deciding one person's fate. It's about being consistent, because if you make an exception for one person, that turns into several hundred billion, then that small sacrifice everyone else was to carry now has destroyed everyone else, too. (I think the issue is that people tend to round down "speck of dust" to 0, then multiply, then find of course any amount of torture isn't worth 0.) Personally, I take a more negative view and see the immense possibility for suffering as a reason that we should seek to destroy the entire multiverse. It's just not very nice otherwise. http://lesswrong.com/lw/kn/torture_vs_dust_specks/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/kn/torture_vs_dust_specks/
- zyxley 12y ago
  > I think the issue is that people tend to round down "speck of dust" to 0, then multiply, then find of course any amount of torture isn't worth 0. Why not round it down to 0? There's some level of discomfort in everyday life to start with that's effectively negligible for any normal person, simply because it's a prerequisite for interacting with the world (getting a raindrop in your eye, dealing with a minor wedgie, having an itchy nose, whatever).
  - MichaelGG 12y ago
    If you round down before multiplying, then you get an invalid answer. First multiply it out. So in my example, torturing 7,625,597,484,987 people for 50 years, versus that many specks of dust for everyone else. (7 trillion is essentially 1, compared to 3^^^3, right?) 7 trillion specks of dust is enough to turn all those other lives into torture, as 7 trillion specks of dust is a few thousand a second, for a very long life. That's why you can't round down first. Eliezer's entire intent there is to illustrate that by default, we suck at scale, we're scope insensitive. Another way: If everyone in the US gave just a penny directly to a poor person, once in a lifetime, that person would be wealthy for life and be OK, right? A penny rounds down to zero, thus we can determine that the right action is to always give money directly to poor individuals, as this will cure poverty at a cost of nothing. You're right that if the only choice, ever, in the entire multiverse was this one 50 years or 3^^^3 specks of dust, then sure, you don't need to follow the rules/math. But we're never going to be faced with just a single decision. Instead, we should be consistent and follow the numbers to determine utility.
eru 12y ago
Yudkowsky is a good writer. That's all. Terry Pratchett was a good writer too. (Probably even better.) And that's all you need to be. Yudkowsky has, like old Goethe had, grander aspirations. We humour them for their literary output.

by zyxley 12y ago

kissickas 12y ago

I haven't read all of the "Sequences," nor am I familiar with most details of the Less-Wrong-mindset's idiosyncrasies. However, I just re-read the whole book and I'm not sure either of those concepts have any bearing on this work. There is a bit of assertion that "timeless physics" is representative of true reality, but my reaction was to look it up and find that it's an interesting fringe theory. For all I know, EY doesn't even assert that same theory's truth. Nothing harmful in sparking curiosity, especially in things such as statistics and logical biases, which is where HPMOR puts its emphasis.

davidgerard 12y ago
He does assert it, then assume its truth in later pieces. http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_Quantum_Physics_Sequence#Timeless_Physics http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_Quantum_Physics_Sequence#...
- kissickas 12y ago
  Interesting. I still have no problem with it, of course, buttressed by my quick glance at that page to see, at the very top: Warning: The central idea in today's post is taken seriously by serious physicists; but it is not experimentally proven and is not taught as standard physics. Today's post draws heavily on the work of the physicist Julian Barbour, and contains diagrams stolen and/or modified from his book "The End of Time". However, some of the arguments here are of my own devising, and Barbour might(?) not agree with them.
  - davidgerard 12y ago
    Yeah. Despite the disclaimer, he then goes on to assume it's literally true. And, for relevance to this post, he does so in the story as well, in Chapter 28. su3su2u1 (who is an actual physicist) discusses the problem in http://su3su2u1.tumblr.com/post/98526012853/chapter-28-hacking-science-map-territory http://su3su2u1.tumblr.com/post/98526012853/chapter-28-hacki... : > There is no “true math of quantum mechanics.” [...] These are different mathematical formulations, over different spaces, that are completely equivalent. > What Hariezer is doing here isn’t separating the map and the territory, its reifying one particular map (configuration space)! >I also find it amusing, in a physics elitist sort of way (sorry for the condescension) that Yudkowsky picks non-relativistic quantum mechanics as the final, ultimate reality. Instead of describing or even mentioning quantum field theory, which is the most low-level theory we (we being science) know of, Yudkowsky picks non-relativistic quantum mechanics, the most low-level theory HE knows. > So this is more bad pedagogy: timeless physics isn’t even a map, it's the idea of a map. [...] It seems very odd to just toss in a somewhat obscure idea as the pinnacle of physics.

Udo 12y ago

> I'm seriously surprised at how many people here are fans of Yudkowsky In my (admittedly extremely limited) exposure to him as a person through videos of his talks and some of his transhumanist writing, I didn't really get the impression that he's anything but a very nice and gifted person. So I think this practice of judging or dismissing entire lives by applying a simplistic theme is an antipattern, and this is true here, too. There's a reason why ad hominem attacks are generally frowned-upon. Yes, I personally found the certainty with which several conclusions are asserted as universal truths on LessWrong in general offputting at times, especially when used in conjunction with the Rationality label, insidiously implying any other analyses of the subject matter would be inherently irrational. However, some subjectively bogus tenets notwithstanding, I still think it's a valiant and intellectually stimulating attempt at building a new philosophical framework which could potentially keep up with science and future human development. At the very least LessWrong Rationality is a good basis for an ongoing discourse on the subject, and at its best it demonstrates a unique exploration of ethics and, indeed, rationality. You may argue most or even all of this framework is lifted from earlier philosophical and scientific achievements, but in some areas standing on the shoulders of giants is actually a good sign you're in the right place.

davidgerard 12y ago
>You may argue most or even all of this framework is lifted from earlier philosophical and scientific achievements, but in some areas standing on the shoulders of giants is actually a good sign you're in the right place. The good bits are not original and the original bits are not good. The problem is that LessWrong has a habit of neologism - so EY will use his own term for something ("fallacy of gray" is one example - known for 2000 years as the "continuum fallacy"), then his young readers, who have met whatever it is for the first time ever, will think his work is much more original and significant than it is 'cos they can't find his term for it. This cuts them off from 2000 years of thinking on the topic and increases LW's halo effect.
- coryfklein 12y ago
  What about people like me that would never have learned about the "continuum fallacy" if it weren't for Eliezer's willingness to stoop to my level and explain things like I'm 5 (or, more accurately, like I'm a fan of Harry Potter)? I personally don't care one bit if the good bits aren't original. They are approachable, and nobody else has done that for me. So I applaud Eliezer and his efforts, regardless of whether or not he has broken ground philosophically.

skybrian 12y ago

It's not so hard to explain: he writes well and generally has something interesting to say. This is more than enough to keep people reading. That doesn't mean everything he writes stands up, but he's smart enough that you have to think a while about what might be wrong with his arguments, and that's entertainment enough.

endtime 12y ago

I'm seriously unsurprised to find the token why-does-anyone-like-Yudkowsky-he-doesn't-have-a-PhD-and-hasn't-even-saved-the-world-yet criticism in a thread about his Harry Potter fan fiction. He's a great writer, and that should be more than enough for the purposes of recommending a thing he wrote.

zyxley 12y ago
I left this out from the parent post because it's a subjective judgment, but I absolutely disagree that he's a "great" writer, or even anything really more than "serviceable" at best.
- jomohke 12y ago
  Can you recommend some alternative writers that fill the role better? I think his writing has two particular things going for it: - He explains concepts clearly with understandable examples. - He presents concepts that aren't (or weren't) well known outside of academia to a wider audience.
  - zyxley 12y ago
    "Scientific parable fiction" is a pretty narrow genre (though I'd personally argue that Yudkowsky does a pretty poor job of it - for example, Harry constantly assuming things without testing them and just happening to be right because the author says so). One that does come to mind is: https://www.fanfiction.net/u/4976703/alexanderwales https://www.fanfiction.net/u/4976703/alexanderwales alexanderwales writes relatively short, punchy stories that explore specific academic and narrative themes, and, importantly, generally work extremely very well as stories even if you discount the thought experiment aspects.
    - endtime 12y ago
      I really liked The Last Christmas and The Metropolitan Man (A Bluer Shade of White felt a little cliched/predictable) and second the recommendation.

MichaelGG 12y ago

>.g. "it's better for one person to be tortured for fifty years than for an extremely large number of people to each get a speck of dust in their eye"), The number in question was 3^^^3 using Knuth's Up Arrow Notation. As he explains, that's a lot of people: (3^(3^(3^(... 7625597484987 times ...)))). If we decide that one person being tortured for 50 years is worth a quick blink by all those other people, then a still tiny amount of people (say, 7625597484987) being tortured would be worth everyone else blinking furiously for their entire lives. So it's not about deciding one person's fate. It's about being consistent, because if you make an exception for one person, that turns into several hundred billion, then that small sacrifice everyone else was to carry now has destroyed everyone else, too. (I think the issue is that people tend to round down "speck of dust" to 0, then multiply, then find of course any amount of torture isn't worth 0.) Personally, I take a more negative view and see the immense possibility for suffering as a reason that we should seek to destroy the entire multiverse. It's just not very nice otherwise. http://lesswrong.com/lw/kn/torture_vs_dust_specks/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/kn/torture_vs_dust_specks/

zyxley 12y ago
> I think the issue is that people tend to round down "speck of dust" to 0, then multiply, then find of course any amount of torture isn't worth 0. Why not round it down to 0? There's some level of discomfort in everyday life to start with that's effectively negligible for any normal person, simply because it's a prerequisite for interacting with the world (getting a raindrop in your eye, dealing with a minor wedgie, having an itchy nose, whatever).
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  If you round down before multiplying, then you get an invalid answer. First multiply it out. So in my example, torturing 7,625,597,484,987 people for 50 years, versus that many specks of dust for everyone else. (7 trillion is essentially 1, compared to 3^^^3, right?) 7 trillion specks of dust is enough to turn all those other lives into torture, as 7 trillion specks of dust is a few thousand a second, for a very long life. That's why you can't round down first. Eliezer's entire intent there is to illustrate that by default, we suck at scale, we're scope insensitive. Another way: If everyone in the US gave just a penny directly to a poor person, once in a lifetime, that person would be wealthy for life and be OK, right? A penny rounds down to zero, thus we can determine that the right action is to always give money directly to poor individuals, as this will cure poverty at a cost of nothing. You're right that if the only choice, ever, in the entire multiverse was this one 50 years or 3^^^3 specks of dust, then sure, you don't need to follow the rules/math. But we're never going to be faced with just a single decision. Instead, we should be consistent and follow the numbers to determine utility.

eru 12y ago

Yudkowsky is a good writer. That's all. Terry Pratchett was a good writer too. (Probably even better.) And that's all you need to be. Yudkowsky has, like old Goethe had, grander aspirations. We humour them for their literary output.