As far as I can tell, Yudkowsky basically grew up on the internet. I think it is more like you went through all the copies of Palin’s school newspaper, and picked up some notes she passed around in class, and then published the most outrageous things she said in such a way that you implied they were written recently. I think this goes against some notion of journalistic tact.
I think it is more like you went through all the copies of Palin’s school newspaper, and picked up some notes she passed around in class, and then published the most outrageous things she said in such a way that you implied they were written recently.
This is exactly the kind of misrepresentation that make me avoid deleting my posts. Most of the most outrageous things he said have been written in the past ten years.
I suppose you are partly referring to the quotes page? Please take a look, there are only two quotes that are older than 2004, for one of which I explicitly note that he doesn’t agree with it anymore, and a second which I believe he still agrees with.
Those two quotes that are dated before 2004 are the least outrageous. They are there mainly to show that he has long been believing into singularitarian ideas and that he can save the world. This is important in evaluating how much of the later arguments are rationalizations of those early beliefs. Which is in turn important because he’s actually asking people for money and giving a whole research field a bad name with his predictions about AI.
Those two quotes that are dated before 2004 are the least outrageous.
This is the most outrageous one to me:
I must warn my reader that my first allegiance is to the Singularity, not humanity. I don’t know what the Singularity will do with us. I don’t know whether Singularities upgrade mortal races, or disassemble us for spare atoms. While possible, I will balance the interests of mortality and Singularity. But if it comes down to Us or Them, I’m with Them. You have been warned.
And it’s clearly the exact opposite of what present Eliezer belives.
The stuff that bothers me are Usenet and mailing list quotes (they are equivalent to passing notes and should be considered off the record) and anything written when he was a teenager. The rest, I suppose, should at least be labeled with the date they were written. And if he has explicitly disclaimed the statement, perhaps that should be mentioned, too.
Young Eliezer was a little crankish and has pretty much grown out of it. I feel like you’re criticising someone who no longer exists.
Also, the page where you try to diagnose him with narsisism just seems mean.
Also, the page where you try to diagnos him with narsisism just seems mean.
I can clarify this. I never intended to write that post but was forced to do so out of self-defense.
I replied to this comment whose author was wondering why Yudkowsky is using Facebook more than LessWrong these days. To which I replied with an on-topic speculation based on evidence.
Then people started viciously attacking me, to which I had to respond. In one of those replies I unfortunately used the term “narcissistic tendencies”. I was then again attacked for using that term. I defended my use of that term with evidence, the result of which is that post.
What do you expect that I do when I am mindlessly attacked by a horde of people? That I just leave it at that and let my name being dragged into dirt?
Many of my posts and comments are direct responses to personal attacks on me from LessWrong members.
So let me get this straight—you did a psychiatric diagnosis over the internet, and instead of saying, ‘obviously I’m using the term colloquially’ you provided evidence.
...
and then you are surprised when you get attacked, and even now characterize these attacks by like as coming from a mindless horde...
when the horde was actually 4 people, only one post was against you personally as opposed to being against that one thing you said, and there were roughly 2 others on your side. And your comments there are upvoted.
Yes, it was a huge overreaction on my side and I shouldn’t have written such a comment in the first place. It was meant as an explanation of how that post came about, it was not meant as an excuse. It was still wrong. The point I want to communicate is that I didn’t do it out of some general interest to cause MIRI distress.
I apologize for offending people and overreacting to what I perceived the way I described it but which was, as you wrote, not that way. I already deleted that post yesterday.
As far as I can tell, Yudkowsky basically grew up on the internet. I think it is more like you went through all the copies of Palin’s school newspaper, and picked up some notes she passed around in class, and then published the most outrageous things she said in such a way that you implied they were written recently. I think this goes against some notion of journalistic tact.
This is exactly the kind of misrepresentation that make me avoid deleting my posts. Most of the most outrageous things he said have been written in the past ten years.
I suppose you are partly referring to the quotes page? Please take a look, there are only two quotes that are older than 2004, for one of which I explicitly note that he doesn’t agree with it anymore, and a second which I believe he still agrees with.
Those two quotes that are dated before 2004 are the least outrageous. They are there mainly to show that he has long been believing into singularitarian ideas and that he can save the world. This is important in evaluating how much of the later arguments are rationalizations of those early beliefs. Which is in turn important because he’s actually asking people for money and giving a whole research field a bad name with his predictions about AI.
This is the most outrageous one to me:
And it’s clearly the exact opposite of what present Eliezer belives.
The stuff that bothers me are Usenet and mailing list quotes (they are equivalent to passing notes and should be considered off the record) and anything written when he was a teenager. The rest, I suppose, should at least be labeled with the date they were written. And if he has explicitly disclaimed the statement, perhaps that should be mentioned, too.
Young Eliezer was a little crankish and has pretty much grown out of it. I feel like you’re criticising someone who no longer exists.
Also, the page where you try to diagnose him with narsisism just seems mean.
I can clarify this. I never intended to write that post but was forced to do so out of self-defense.
I replied to this comment whose author was wondering why Yudkowsky is using Facebook more than LessWrong these days. To which I replied with an on-topic speculation based on evidence.
Then people started viciously attacking me, to which I had to respond. In one of those replies I unfortunately used the term “narcissistic tendencies”. I was then again attacked for using that term. I defended my use of that term with evidence, the result of which is that post.
What do you expect that I do when I am mindlessly attacked by a horde of people? That I just leave it at that and let my name being dragged into dirt?
Many of my posts and comments are direct responses to personal attacks on me from LessWrong members.
So let me get this straight—you did a psychiatric diagnosis over the internet, and instead of saying, ‘obviously I’m using the term colloquially’ you provided evidence.
...
and then you are surprised when you get attacked, and even now characterize these attacks by like as coming from a mindless horde...
when the horde was actually 4 people, only one post was against you personally as opposed to being against that one thing you said, and there were roughly 2 others on your side. And your comments there are upvoted.
Yes, it was a huge overreaction on my side and I shouldn’t have written such a comment in the first place. It was meant as an explanation of how that post came about, it was not meant as an excuse. It was still wrong. The point I want to communicate is that I didn’t do it out of some general interest to cause MIRI distress.
I apologize for offending people and overreacting to what I perceived the way I described it but which was, as you wrote, not that way. I already deleted that post yesterday.
OK!