The reactions I see to his public statements indicate that he is creating polarization.
I had the opposite impression, from this video and in general: that Yudkowsky is good at avoiding polarizing statements, while still not compromising on saying what he actually thinks. Compare him with Hinton, who throws around clearly politically coded statements.
Do you have a control to infer he’s polarizing? I suspect you are looking at a confounded effect.
It sounds like you’re referring to political polarization. I’m referring to a totally different type of polarization, purely on the issue of AI development.
My evidence that Yudkowsky in particular is creating polarization is hearing his statements referred to frequently by other commentators, with apparent negative emotions. There is a potential confound here in that Yudkowsky is the loudest voice. However, I think what I’m observing is stronger than that. Other safety advocates who’ve gotten real press, like Hinton, Tegmark, Hawking, etc. etc. frame the argument in more general and less strident ways, and I have not heard their statements used as examples by people who sound emotionally charged on the opposite side.
That’s why it sounds to me that Yudkowsky is making a systematic communication mistake that creates emotionally charged opposition to his views. Which is a big problem if it’s true.
I had the opposite impression, from this video and in general: that Yudkowsky is good at avoiding polarizing statements, while still not compromising on saying what he actually thinks. Compare him with Hinton, who throws around clearly politically coded statements.
Do you have a control to infer he’s polarizing? I suspect you are looking at a confounded effect.
It sounds like you’re referring to political polarization. I’m referring to a totally different type of polarization, purely on the issue of AI development.
My evidence that Yudkowsky in particular is creating polarization is hearing his statements referred to frequently by other commentators, with apparent negative emotions. There is a potential confound here in that Yudkowsky is the loudest voice. However, I think what I’m observing is stronger than that. Other safety advocates who’ve gotten real press, like Hinton, Tegmark, Hawking, etc. etc. frame the argument in more general and less strident ways, and I have not heard their statements used as examples by people who sound emotionally charged on the opposite side.
That’s why it sounds to me that Yudkowsky is making a systematic communication mistake that creates emotionally charged opposition to his views. Which is a big problem if it’s true.