I think Eliezer’s writing are exactly what you would expect from someone who is extremely intelligent, with the common additional factors in highly intelligent people of distrusting authority (because it tends to be less intelligent than you), and only skimming expert texts (because as a child, for most texts you were exposed to, you either understood them immediately, or the texts had issues, so you are interpreting a text that leaves you confused at first as evidence that the text is wrong), while delving with hyperfocus into texts that are often overlooked, many of which are valuable.
That is, you get a very intelligent, very rational, well articulated, unusual outside view on a cursory perception of a problem. With the unusual bonus that Eliezer really tries to be a good person, too.
This can be immensely valuable. When you are working in a field for a long time, you can get stuck in modes of thinking, and this sort of outside view can help you step back and notice that you are doing something fundamentally wrong.
But it is almost certainly crucially incomplete, wrong in the technical details, impractical, and sometimes, even often, plain wrong. But sometimes, they are brilliantly right.
Such texts are still very much worth reading, I think. Not as your base knowledge, you will get completely lost. But as an addition to a general education. Especially because he writes them in a manner that makes them very pleasant to read; he writes and explains very well. It is rare for someone to include relevant information and lessons in stories that are plain fun to read, and sometimes really inspiring: HPMOR made me weep, and I am rereading it now for the third time, and still admiring it.
But you need to take everything Eliezer writes with a grain of salt, and double check how the experts are actually representing themselves. Do not trust him when he represents something as settled. In this sense, it is worth knowing about him as a character—if you just check his arguments, but trust his premises to be true as reported by him, you will be mislead, and you need to know that the premises may well not be.
Animal consciousness, especially pain, especially in non-human mammals, is indeed well established. Happy to explain more if someone doubts this, this is actually something I am academically qualified for.
And while I do not find philosophical zombies or non-physicalism plausible, Eliezer indeed badly misrepresents that debate in a way that even a first year philosophy student with passing knowledge of the subject would find egregious.
And you didn’t pick up on it here, but the way that Eliezer represents ethics is terrible. Naive utilitarianism is not just not the default assumption in ethics, it is widely considered deeply problematic for good reasons, and telling people they are irrational for doubting it is really problematic.
I’ve also been told by experts in physics that I trust that his quantum take, while not as bad as you’d think, is far from perfect or settled, and loudly and repeatedly by people in AI that the technical aspects of his solutions are utterly impractical. And on a lot of AI safety issues, my impression is that he seems to have settled into a stance that is at least partially emotionally motivated, no longer questioning his own assumptions or framework.
You can tell people that his positions are very controversial, and that there are actually good reasons for that. You can highlight to people that relying on your intelligence alone and disregarding the lifetime achievements of other humans as stuff that you can probably make up yourself in better in an afternoon is misguided, and will leave you disconnected from the rest of humanity and ignorant of important stuff. But I think on average, reading some of Eliezer’s stuff will do people good, and he does a lot of stuff right in ways that deserve to be emulated and lauded.
I still consider him a very, very smart person with relevant ideas who tries really fucking hard to be rational and good and does much better than most, and who is worth listening to and treating with respect. He also strikes me as someone who is doing badly because the world is heading straight towards a future that is extremely high risk in ways he has warned about for a long time, and who hence really does not deserve bashing, but rather kindness. People forget that there is another person behind the screen, a person who is vulnerable, who can be having a terrible day. He’s become somewhat famous, but that doesn’t make him no longer a vulnerable human. I think you could have made these general points, and achieved the aim of teaching him to do better, or getting readers to read him more critically, without attacking him personally to this extent.
And while I do not find philosophical zombies or non-physicalism plausible, Eliezer indeed badly misrepresents that debate in a way that even a first year philosophy student with passing knowledge of the subject would find egregious.
This is not my impression. (I am not an expert, though I studied philosophy, and specifically philosophy of mind, as an undergrad.) From what I know and have read of the debate, Eliezer’s depiction seems accurate.
What misrepresentation do you see, specifically?
And you didn’t pick up on it here, but the way that Eliezer represents ethics is terrible. Naive utilitarianism is not just not the default assumption in ethics, it is widely considered deeply problematic for good reasons, and telling people they are irrational for doubting it is really problematic.
Animal consciousness, especially pain, especially in non-human mammals, is indeed well established. Happy to explain more if someone doubts this, this is actually something I am academically qualified for.
I doubt this. Please explain more!
(My best guess is that this disagreement hinges on equivocation between meanings of the word “consciousness”, but if there’s instead some knowledge of which I’m unaware, I’m eager to learn of it.)
I think this comment is entirely right until the very end. I don’t think I really attack him as a person—I don’t say he’s evil or malicious or anything in the vicinity, I just say he’s often wrong. Seems hard to argue that without arguing against his points.
I think Eliezer’s writing are exactly what you would expect from someone who is extremely intelligent, with the common additional factors in highly intelligent people of distrusting authority (because it tends to be less intelligent than you), and only skimming expert texts (because as a child, for most texts you were exposed to, you either understood them immediately, or the texts had issues, so you are interpreting a text that leaves you confused at first as evidence that the text is wrong), while delving with hyperfocus into texts that are often overlooked, many of which are valuable.
That is, you get a very intelligent, very rational, well articulated, unusual outside view on a cursory perception of a problem. With the unusual bonus that Eliezer really tries to be a good person, too.
This can be immensely valuable. When you are working in a field for a long time, you can get stuck in modes of thinking, and this sort of outside view can help you step back and notice that you are doing something fundamentally wrong.
But it is almost certainly crucially incomplete, wrong in the technical details, impractical, and sometimes, even often, plain wrong. But sometimes, they are brilliantly right.
Such texts are still very much worth reading, I think. Not as your base knowledge, you will get completely lost. But as an addition to a general education. Especially because he writes them in a manner that makes them very pleasant to read; he writes and explains very well. It is rare for someone to include relevant information and lessons in stories that are plain fun to read, and sometimes really inspiring: HPMOR made me weep, and I am rereading it now for the third time, and still admiring it.
But you need to take everything Eliezer writes with a grain of salt, and double check how the experts are actually representing themselves. Do not trust him when he represents something as settled. In this sense, it is worth knowing about him as a character—if you just check his arguments, but trust his premises to be true as reported by him, you will be mislead, and you need to know that the premises may well not be.
Animal consciousness, especially pain, especially in non-human mammals, is indeed well established. Happy to explain more if someone doubts this, this is actually something I am academically qualified for.
And while I do not find philosophical zombies or non-physicalism plausible, Eliezer indeed badly misrepresents that debate in a way that even a first year philosophy student with passing knowledge of the subject would find egregious.
And you didn’t pick up on it here, but the way that Eliezer represents ethics is terrible. Naive utilitarianism is not just not the default assumption in ethics, it is widely considered deeply problematic for good reasons, and telling people they are irrational for doubting it is really problematic.
I’ve also been told by experts in physics that I trust that his quantum take, while not as bad as you’d think, is far from perfect or settled, and loudly and repeatedly by people in AI that the technical aspects of his solutions are utterly impractical. And on a lot of AI safety issues, my impression is that he seems to have settled into a stance that is at least partially emotionally motivated, no longer questioning his own assumptions or framework.
You can tell people that his positions are very controversial, and that there are actually good reasons for that. You can highlight to people that relying on your intelligence alone and disregarding the lifetime achievements of other humans as stuff that you can probably make up yourself in better in an afternoon is misguided, and will leave you disconnected from the rest of humanity and ignorant of important stuff. But I think on average, reading some of Eliezer’s stuff will do people good, and he does a lot of stuff right in ways that deserve to be emulated and lauded.
I still consider him a very, very smart person with relevant ideas who tries really fucking hard to be rational and good and does much better than most, and who is worth listening to and treating with respect. He also strikes me as someone who is doing badly because the world is heading straight towards a future that is extremely high risk in ways he has warned about for a long time, and who hence really does not deserve bashing, but rather kindness. People forget that there is another person behind the screen, a person who is vulnerable, who can be having a terrible day. He’s become somewhat famous, but that doesn’t make him no longer a vulnerable human. I think you could have made these general points, and achieved the aim of teaching him to do better, or getting readers to read him more critically, without attacking him personally to this extent.
This is not my impression. (I am not an expert, though I studied philosophy, and specifically philosophy of mind, as an undergrad.) From what I know and have read of the debate, Eliezer’s depiction seems accurate.
What misrepresentation do you see, specifically?
I totally agree here, FWIW.
I doubt this. Please explain more!
(My best guess is that this disagreement hinges on equivocation between meanings of the word “consciousness”, but if there’s instead some knowledge of which I’m unaware, I’m eager to learn of it.)
I think this comment is entirely right until the very end. I don’t think I really attack him as a person—I don’t say he’s evil or malicious or anything in the vicinity, I just say he’s often wrong. Seems hard to argue that without arguing against his points.