This attitude betrays a misunderstanding of cognitive privilege. Just as a person born into wealth has a head start in life, a person born with high cognitive ability begins the race miles ahead of others. Yet, many in rationalist communities resist this conclusion, likely because it challenges the notion of a purely meritocratic intellect.
“Yet, many in rationalist communities resist this conclusion” — Who? Where? I have never seen anything that fits this. It comes out of nowhere. And it isn’t a “conclusion”, it’s the observation the article starts from.
“likely because it challenges the notion” — More confabulated speculation.
“of a purely meritocratic intellect” — A what? What is a “meritocratic intellect”? How does cognitive privilege “challenge” this notion?
The implicit assumption that anyone could reason as we do if they simply tried harder.
Never seen this one either. The very opposite has been notably written by Eliezer. It is commonplace on Lesswrong that while we may to some extent improve our thinking, we are nevertheless cognitively unequal by magnitudes that we know of no way to surmount.
Questions for Reflection
Did the writer prime the LLM with DEI training manuals? Go through it replacing cognitive inequality by race, gender, or income inequality and it would be typical of the genre. In fact, that suggests an alternative hypothesis for the genesis of this article: that the author made just such a translation in the opposite direction.
LessWrong and similar communities value rationality, yet rationalists often overestimate the role of effort and underestimate the role of luck in intellectual ability.
More confabulation.
As AI reshapes our world, it’s time to
Typical LLM tic.
It’s all like this. It’s a castle in the air, whose nominal author has made no effort to put foundations under it. There is one actual fact in the article, that we have unequal mental abilities. The rest is fog and applause lights.
And speaking of applause lights, while LLM undoubtedly had a hand in writing this article, it is the faults in the thinking and writing that damn it. LLM was merely the tool that facilitated it. People have always been capable of writing such things unaided, parodied by Eliezer:
I am tempted to give a talk sometime that consists of nothing but applause lights, and see how long it takes for the audience to start laughing:
I am here to propose to you today that we need to balance the risks and opportunities of advanced artificial intelligence. We should avoid the risks and, insofar as it is possible, realize the opportunities. We should not needlessly confront entirely unnecessary dangers. To achieve these goals, we must plan wisely and rationally. We should not act in fear and panic, or give in to technophobia; but neither should we act in blind enthusiasm. We should respect the interests of all parties with a stake in the Singularity. We must try to ensure that the benefits of advanced technologies accrue to as many individuals as possible, rather than being restricted to a few. We must try to avoid, as much as possible, violent conflicts using these technologies; and we must prevent massive destructive capability from falling into the hands of individuals. We should think through these issues before, not after, it is too late to do anything about them . . .
I reviewed it. It didn’t trigger my “LLM generated content” vibes, though I also don’t think it’s an amazing essay.
It has LLM written all over it. For example:
“Yet, many in rationalist communities resist this conclusion” — Who? Where? I have never seen anything that fits this. It comes out of nowhere. And it isn’t a “conclusion”, it’s the observation the article starts from.
“likely because it challenges the notion” — More confabulated speculation.
“of a purely meritocratic intellect” — A what? What is a “meritocratic intellect”? How does cognitive privilege “challenge” this notion?
Never seen this one either. The very opposite has been notably written by Eliezer. It is commonplace on Lesswrong that while we may to some extent improve our thinking, we are nevertheless cognitively unequal by magnitudes that we know of no way to surmount.
Did the writer prime the LLM with DEI training manuals? Go through it replacing cognitive inequality by race, gender, or income inequality and it would be typical of the genre. In fact, that suggests an alternative hypothesis for the genesis of this article: that the author made just such a translation in the opposite direction.
More confabulation.
Typical LLM tic.
It’s all like this. It’s a castle in the air, whose nominal author has made no effort to put foundations under it. There is one actual fact in the article, that we have unequal mental abilities. The rest is fog and applause lights.
And speaking of applause lights, while LLM undoubtedly had a hand in writing this article, it is the faults in the thinking and writing that damn it. LLM was merely the tool that facilitated it. People have always been capable of writing such things unaided, parodied by Eliezer: