A) doesn’t seem to be quoted verbatim from the supplied reference!
There is some somewhat similar material there—but E.Y. is reading out a question that has been submitted by a reader! Misquoting him while he is quoting someone else doesn’t seem to be very fair!
[Edit: please note the parent has been dramatically edited since this response was made]
I perceived it to be the gist of what he said and directly linked to the source. I have a hard time to transcribe spoken English. Would you do so please? Thanks.
I added a disclaimer. Still, it’s what he means. If I wrote, Yudkowsky says “we need to work on FAI” without pasting all of the sequences on LW, it still be right. But if you want to nit-pick you are probably right.
I haven’t followed the ins and the outs of this pointless drama, but I had assumed those were things Eliezer actually said. I’m pretty miffed to learn that those weren’t actually quotes, but rather something you had “inferred from revealed self-evident wisdom”.
That kind of stuff makes it tempting to pretty much ignore anything you write.
..assumed those were things Eliezer actually said.
Don’t be fooled by the other commenter’s, go and listen to the related videos I linked to. It would however be reasonable to paraphrase Yudkowsky in that way even if he never came close to saying that as it is reasonable to infer from his other writings that working on FAI and donating to organisations working on FAI (the SIAI being the only one I’m told) is the most important thing you could possible do. If not, why are people here actually doing just that?
I listened to the video. He said that while reading aloud a question someone was asking him.
I’m not objecting to the reformulation in your now modified post. I’m just pissed that you made me believe that it was an actual Eliezer Yudkowsky quote.
He said that while reading aloud a question someone was asking him.
Look, I didn’t know that everything within these “” symbols is taken to be the verbatim quotation of someone. I use them all the time to highlight or mark whatever I see fit. And the answers I wrote to the questions he has been asked resemble the gist of what he said. I simply didn’t expect anyone to believe that I transcribed two +4 minute videos which I linked to right after. I also never made anyone believe anything controversial. It is something that I think is widely accepted within this community anyway and it is what he said in the videos, although more long-winded.
Look, I didn’t know that everything within these “” symbols is taken to be the verbatim quotation of someone. I use them all the time to highlight or mark whatever I see fit.
But on a more “serious” note, when the implication is that you’re “quoting” someone, and you’re “using” quotation marks, “readers” will generally interpret the marks as quoting rather than “highlighting.”
Look, I’m quite often an idiot. I was looking for excuses while being psychologically overwhelmed today. If people here perceived that I did something wrong there, I probably did. I was just being lazy and imprudent so I wrote what I thought was the answer given by EY to the question posed in that part of a Q&A video series. There was no fraudulent intent on my part.
So please accept my apologies for possible misguidance and impoliteness. I’m just going to delete the comment now. (ETA: I’ll just leave the links to the videos.)
I’m trying for some time now to not getting involved on here anymore and to get back to being a passive reader. But replies make me feel constrained to answer once more.
If there is something else, let me know and I’ll just delete it.
How do your quotes claim that Eliezer Yudkowsky is the only person who should be leading?
(I would say that factually, there are also other people in leadership positions within SIAI, and Eliezer is extremely glad that this is so, instead of thinking that it should be only him.)
How do they demonstrate that donating to SIAI is “spending on a particular future”?
(I see it as trying to prevent a particular risk.)
Less Wrong Q&A with Eliezer Yudkowsky: Video Answers
Q: The only two legitimate occupations for an intelligent person in our current world? Answer
Q: What’s your advice for Less Wrong readers who want to help save the human race? Answer
A) doesn’t seem to be quoted verbatim from the supplied reference!
There is some somewhat similar material there—but E.Y. is reading out a question that has been submitted by a reader! Misquoting him while he is quoting someone else doesn’t seem to be very fair!
[Edit: please note the parent has been dramatically edited since this response was made]
I perceived it to be the gist of what he said and directly linked to the source. I have a hard time to transcribe spoken English. Would you do so please? Thanks.
You should not use quotation marks unless the quotes are verbatim. The “gist” does not suffice.
I added a disclaimer. Still, it’s what he means. If I wrote, Yudkowsky says “we need to work on FAI” without pasting all of the sequences on LW, it still be right. But if you want to nit-pick you are probably right.
I haven’t followed the ins and the outs of this pointless drama, but I had assumed those were things Eliezer actually said. I’m pretty miffed to learn that those weren’t actually quotes, but rather something you had “inferred from revealed self-evident wisdom”.
That kind of stuff makes it tempting to pretty much ignore anything you write.
Don’t be fooled by the other commenter’s, go and listen to the related videos I linked to. It would however be reasonable to paraphrase Yudkowsky in that way even if he never came close to saying that as it is reasonable to infer from his other writings that working on FAI and donating to organisations working on FAI (the SIAI being the only one I’m told) is the most important thing you could possible do. If not, why are people here actually doing just that?
I listened to the video. He said that while reading aloud a question someone was asking him.
I’m not objecting to the reformulation in your now modified post. I’m just pissed that you made me believe that it was an actual Eliezer Yudkowsky quote.
Look, I didn’t know that everything within these “” symbols is taken to be the verbatim quotation of someone. I use them all the time to highlight or mark whatever I see fit. And the answers I wrote to the questions he has been asked resemble the gist of what he said. I simply didn’t expect anyone to believe that I transcribed two +4 minute videos which I linked to right after. I also never made anyone believe anything controversial. It is something that I think is widely accepted within this community anyway and it is what he said in the videos, although more long-winded.
The “blog” of “unnecessary” quotation marks
But on a more “serious” note, when the implication is that you’re “quoting” someone, and you’re “using” quotation marks, “readers” will generally interpret the marks as quoting rather than “highlighting.”
Look, I’m quite often an idiot. I was looking for excuses while being psychologically overwhelmed today. If people here perceived that I did something wrong there, I probably did. I was just being lazy and imprudent so I wrote what I thought was the answer given by EY to the question posed in that part of a Q&A video series. There was no fraudulent intent on my part.
So please accept my apologies for possible misguidance and impoliteness. I’m just going to delete the comment now. (ETA: I’ll just leave the links to the videos.)
I’m trying for some time now to not getting involved on here anymore and to get back to being a passive reader. But replies make me feel constrained to answer once more.
If there is something else, let me know and I’ll just delete it.
Upvoted for admission of error.
You really, really, really should have noted that; as it is, your comment is an outright lie. (Thanks for catching, Tim.)
How do your quotes claim that Eliezer Yudkowsky is the only person who should be leading?
(I would say that factually, there are also other people in leadership positions within SIAI, and Eliezer is extremely glad that this is so, instead of thinking that it should be only him.)
How do they demonstrate that donating to SIAI is “spending on a particular future”?
(I see it as trying to prevent a particular risk.)