I initially upvoted this post, because the criticism seemed reasonable. Then I read the discussion, and switched to downvoting it. In particular, this:
Taken in isolation, these thoughts and arguments might amount to nothing more than a minor addition to the points that you make above. However, my experience with SI is that when I tried to raise these concerns back in 2005/2006 I was subjected to a series of attacks that culminated in a tirade of slanderous denunciations from the founder of SI, Eliezer Yudkowsky. After delivering this tirade, Yudkowsky then banned me from the discussion forum that he controlled, and instructed others on that forum that discussion about me was henceforth forbidden.
Since that time I have found that when I partake in discussions on AGI topics in a context where SI supporters are present, I am frequently subjected to abusive personal attacks in which reference is made to Yudkowsky’s earlier outburst. This activity is now so common that when I occasionally post comments here, my remarks are very quickly voted down below a threshold that makes them virtually invisible. (A fate that will probably apply immediately to this very comment).
Serious accusations there, with no links that would allow someone to judge the truth of them. And after reading the discussion, I suspect the reason people keep bringing up your 2006 banning is because they see your current behavior is part of a pattern of bad behavior, and that the behavior that led to your 2006 banning was also part of that same pattern of bad behavior.
I witnessed many of the emails in the 2006 banning. Richard disagreed with Eliezer often, and not very diplomatically. Rather than deal with Richard’s arguments, Eliezer decided to label Richard as a stupid troll, which he obviously was not, and dismiss him. I am disappointed that Eliezer has apparently never apologized. The email list, SL4, slacked off in volume for months afterwords, probably because most participants felt disgusted by the affair; and Ben Goertzel made a new list, which many people switched to.
The fact that many people quit the list / cut back their participation seems fairly strong evidence that Loosemore has a legitimate complaint here.
I’m not sure. People sometimes cut back participation in that sort of thing in response to drama in general. However, it is definitely evidence. Phil’s remark makes me strongly update in the direction of Loosemore having a legitimate point.
I initially upvoted this post, because the criticism seemed reasonable. Then I read the discussion, and switched to downvoting it. In particular, this:
Serious accusations there, with no links that would allow someone to judge the truth of them. And after reading the discussion, I suspect the reason people keep bringing up your 2006 banning is because they see your current behavior is part of a pattern of bad behavior, and that the behavior that led to your 2006 banning was also part of that same pattern of bad behavior.
I witnessed many of the emails in the 2006 banning. Richard disagreed with Eliezer often, and not very diplomatically. Rather than deal with Richard’s arguments, Eliezer decided to label Richard as a stupid troll, which he obviously was not, and dismiss him. I am disappointed that Eliezer has apparently never apologized. The email list, SL4, slacked off in volume for months afterwords, probably because most participants felt disgusted by the affair; and Ben Goertzel made a new list, which many people switched to.
Hmmm...
The fact that many people quit the list / cut back their participation seems fairly strong evidence that Loosemore has a legitimate complaint here.
Though if so, he’s done a poor job conveying it in this thread.
I’m not sure. People sometimes cut back participation in that sort of thing in response to drama in general. However, it is definitely evidence. Phil’s remark makes me strongly update in the direction of Loosemore having a legitimate point.