This post seems mostly wrong and mostly deceptive. You start with this quote:
“After many years, I came to the conclusion that everything he says is false. . . . “He will lie just for the fun of it. Every one of his arguments was tinged and coded with falseness and pretense. It was like playing chess with extra pieces. It was all fake.”
This is correctly labelled as being about someone else, but is presented as though it’s making the same accusation, just against a different person. But this is not the accusation you go on to make; you never once accuse him of lying. This sets the tone, and I definitely noticed what you did there.
As for the concrete disagreements you list: I’m quite confident you’re wrong about the bottom line regarding nonphysicalism (though it’s possible his nosology is incorrect, I haven’t looked closely at that). I think prior to encountering Eliezer’s writing, I would have put nonphysicalism in the same bucket as theism (ie, false, for similar reasons), so I don’t think Eliezer is causally upstream of me thinking that. I’m also quite confident that you’re wrong about decision theory, and that Eliezer is largely correct. (I estimate Eliezer is responsible for about 30% of the decision-theory-related content I’ve read). On the third disagreement, regarding animal consciousness, it looks likevalues question paired with word games, I’m not sure there’s even a concrete thing (that isn’t a definition) for me to agree or disagree with.
Did you read the next sentence? The next sentence is ” (note, this is not exactly how I feel about Yudkowsky, I don’t think he’s knowingly dishonest, but I just thought it was a good quote and partially represents my attitude towards Yudkowsky).” The reason I included the quote was that it expressed how I feel about Yud minus the lying part—every time I examine one of his claims in detail, it almost always turns out false, often egregiously so.
I don’t think that arguments about whether animals are conscious are value questions. They are factual questions—do animals have experience. Is there something it’s like to be them?
I would have to agree with the parent, why present your writing in such a way that is almost guaranteed to turn away, or greatly increase the skepticism of, serious readers?
A von-Neumann-like character might have been able to get away with writing in this kind of style, and still present some satisfactory piece, but hardly anyone less competent.
It is some months later so I am writing this with the benefit of hindsight, but it seems almost self-negating.
Especially since a large portion of the argument rests on questions regarding Yudowsky’s personal writing style, character, personality, world view, etc., which therefore draw into sharp contrasts the same attributes of any writer calling those out.
i.e. even if every claim regarding Yudowsky’s personal failings turns out to be 100% true, that would still require someone somewhat better in those respects to actually gain the sympathy of the audience.
They are factual questions—do animals have experience.
They are factual questions about high-level concepts (in physicalism, of course) and high-level concepts depend on values—without values even your experiences at one place are not the same things as your experiences in another place.
This post seems mostly wrong and mostly deceptive. You start with this quote:
This is correctly labelled as being about someone else, but is presented as though it’s making the same accusation, just against a different person. But this is not the accusation you go on to make; you never once accuse him of lying. This sets the tone, and I definitely noticed what you did there.
As for the concrete disagreements you list: I’m quite confident you’re wrong about the bottom line regarding nonphysicalism (though it’s possible his nosology is incorrect, I haven’t looked closely at that). I think prior to encountering Eliezer’s writing, I would have put nonphysicalism in the same bucket as theism (ie, false, for similar reasons), so I don’t think Eliezer is causally upstream of me thinking that. I’m also quite confident that you’re wrong about decision theory, and that Eliezer is largely correct. (I estimate Eliezer is responsible for about 30% of the decision-theory-related content I’ve read). On the third disagreement, regarding animal consciousness, it looks likevalues question paired with word games, I’m not sure there’s even a concrete thing (that isn’t a definition) for me to agree or disagree with.
Did you read the next sentence? The next sentence is ” (note, this is not exactly how I feel about Yudkowsky, I don’t think he’s knowingly dishonest, but I just thought it was a good quote and partially represents my attitude towards Yudkowsky).” The reason I included the quote was that it expressed how I feel about Yud minus the lying part—every time I examine one of his claims in detail, it almost always turns out false, often egregiously so.
I don’t think that arguments about whether animals are conscious are value questions. They are factual questions—do animals have experience. Is there something it’s like to be them?
I would have to agree with the parent, why present your writing in such a way that is almost guaranteed to turn away, or greatly increase the skepticism of, serious readers?
A von-Neumann-like character might have been able to get away with writing in this kind of style, and still present some satisfactory piece, but hardly anyone less competent.
It is some months later so I am writing this with the benefit of hindsight, but it seems almost self-negating.
Especially since a large portion of the argument rests on questions regarding Yudowsky’s personal writing style, character, personality, world view, etc., which therefore draw into sharp contrasts the same attributes of any writer calling those out.
i.e. even if every claim regarding Yudowsky’s personal failings turns out to be 100% true, that would still require someone somewhat better in those respects to actually gain the sympathy of the audience.
I didn’t attack his character, I said he was wrong about lots of things.
Did you skim or skip over reading most of the comment?
They are factual questions about high-level concepts (in physicalism, of course) and high-level concepts depend on values—without values even your experiences at one place are not the same things as your experiences in another place.