I think it works like this: this sort of thing can trigger some people’s bullshit detector. They sense that something is off when this ‘rationalist fiction’ tries to to claim some sort of special status, while still doing the usual writing tricks. Of course they fail to pinpoint the source of the contradiction (most don’t habitually look out for the ‘Is that your true rejection’ thingy—especially if they already have some reason to jump to an EY-bashing conclusion, mostly something status-based; I call that sort of thing ‘suspiciously self-serving’). Instead they offer less specific criticism, which of course will not be true, so it will be rejected by anyone else. Most of those who are not pre-disposed to negativity will simply ignore the sense of unease, if they have it at all.
Now, I could have said as much without the snark. I was trying to create an ugh field for the ‘euthanistic critics’. I would not have my comment waved as banner in the “Yudkowsky’s writing sucks” camp—call it a personal preference. Yeah, I’m probably overestimating the gives-a-shit quotient here.
Also I have criticized a few people for jumping to the conclusion of writer’s mistake, when I thought there was more to it, so when I show how what I think a real mistake looks like… yeah, guilty of pride. And since that may make me look like more of an idiot, if Eliezer completely ignores this… that’s why ‘suspiciously self-serving’ can be a problem; if it’s not connected to reality, it’s bound to flop. :(
I tried not to have anyone specific in mind when I wrote the comment, but I was most likely primed by mention of DLP.
I think it works like this: this sort of thing can trigger some people’s bullshit detector. They sense that something is off when this ‘rationalist fiction’ tries to to claim some sort of special status, while still doing the usual writing tricks. Of course they fail to pinpoint the source of the contradiction (most don’t habitually look out for the ‘Is that your true rejection’ thingy—especially if they already have some reason to jump to an EY-bashing conclusion, mostly something status-based; I call that sort of thing ‘suspiciously self-serving’). Instead they offer less specific criticism, which of course will not be true, so it will be rejected by anyone else. Most of those who are not pre-disposed to negativity will simply ignore the sense of unease, if they have it at all.
Now, I could have said as much without the snark. I was trying to create an ugh field for the ‘euthanistic critics’. I would not have my comment waved as banner in the “Yudkowsky’s writing sucks” camp—call it a personal preference. Yeah, I’m probably overestimating the gives-a-shit quotient here.
Also I have criticized a few people for jumping to the conclusion of writer’s mistake, when I thought there was more to it, so when I show how what I think a real mistake looks like… yeah, guilty of pride. And since that may make me look like more of an idiot, if Eliezer completely ignores this… that’s why ‘suspiciously self-serving’ can be a problem; if it’s not connected to reality, it’s bound to flop. :(
I tried not to have anyone specific in mind when I wrote the comment, but I was most likely primed by mention of DLP.