I did ask to be critiqued, so in some sense it’s a totally fair response, imo. At the same time, though, Eliezer’s response does feel rude, which is worthy of analysis, considering EY’s outsized impact on the community.[1] So why does Yudkowsky come across as being rude here?
My first thoughts upon reading his comment (when scanning for tone) is that it opens with what feels like an assumption of inferiority, with the sense of “here, let me grant you a small parcel of my wisdom so that you can see just how wrong you are,” rather than “let me share insight I have gathered on my quest towards truth which will convince you.” In other words, a destructive, rather than constructive tone. This isn’t really a bad thing in the context of honest criticism. However, if you happen to care about actually changing other’s minds, most people respond better to a constructive tone, so their brain doesn’t automatically enter “fight mode” as an immediate adversarial response. My guess is Eliezer only really cares about convincing people who are rational enough not to become reactionaries over an adversarial tone, but I personally believe that it’s worth tailoring public comments like this to be a bit more comfortable for the average reader. Being careful about that also makes a future PR disaster less likely (though still not impossible even if you’re perfect), since you’ll get fewer people who feel rejected by the community (which could cause trouble later). I hope this makes sense, and I don’t come across as too rude myself here. (If so, please let me know!)
In case Eliezer is still reading this thread, I want to emphasise that this is not meant as a personal attack, but as a critique of your writing in the specific context of your work as a community leader/role-model—despite my criticism, your Sequences deeply changed my ideology and hence my life, so I’m not too upset over your writing style!
I think Eliezer was rude here, and both you and the mods think that the benefits of the good parts of the comment outweigh the costs of the rudeness. That’s a reasonable opinion, but it doesn’t make Eliezer’s statement not rude, and I’m in general happy that both the rudeness and the usefulness are being entered into common knowledge.
FWIW, I think it’s more likely he’s just tired of how many half-baked threads there are each time he makes a new statement about AI. This is not a value judgement of this post. I genuinely read it as a “here’s why your post doesn’t respond to my ideas”.
Agreed, and since I wasn’t able able to present my ideas clearly enough for his interpretation of my words to not diverge from my intentions, his criticism is totally valid coming from that perspective. I’m sure EY is quite exhausted seeing so many poorly-thought-out criticisms of his work, but ultimately (and unfortunately), motivation and hidden context doesn’t matter much when it comes to how people will interpret you.
This is quite a rude response
I did ask to be critiqued, so in some sense it’s a totally fair response, imo. At the same time, though, Eliezer’s response does feel rude, which is worthy of analysis, considering EY’s outsized impact on the community.[1] So why does Yudkowsky come across as being rude here?
My first thoughts upon reading his comment (when scanning for tone) is that it opens with what feels like an assumption of inferiority, with the sense of “here, let me grant you a small parcel of my wisdom so that you can see just how wrong you are,” rather than “let me share insight I have gathered on my quest towards truth which will convince you.” In other words, a destructive, rather than constructive tone. This isn’t really a bad thing in the context of honest criticism. However, if you happen to care about actually changing other’s minds, most people respond better to a constructive tone, so their brain doesn’t automatically enter “fight mode” as an immediate adversarial response. My guess is Eliezer only really cares about convincing people who are rational enough not to become reactionaries over an adversarial tone, but I personally believe that it’s worth tailoring public comments like this to be a bit more comfortable for the average reader. Being careful about that also makes a future PR disaster less likely (though still not impossible even if you’re perfect), since you’ll get fewer people who feel rejected by the community (which could cause trouble later). I hope this makes sense, and I don’t come across as too rude myself here. (If so, please let me know!)
In case Eliezer is still reading this thread, I want to emphasise that this is not meant as a personal attack, but as a critique of your writing in the specific context of your work as a community leader/role-model—despite my criticism, your Sequences deeply changed my ideology and hence my life, so I’m not too upset over your writing style!
I think Eliezer was rude here, and both you and the mods think that the benefits of the good parts of the comment outweigh the costs of the rudeness. That’s a reasonable opinion, but it doesn’t make Eliezer’s statement not rude, and I’m in general happy that both the rudeness and the usefulness are being entered into common knowledge.
FWIW, I think it’s more likely he’s just tired of how many half-baked threads there are each time he makes a new statement about AI. This is not a value judgement of this post. I genuinely read it as a “here’s why your post doesn’t respond to my ideas”.
Agreed, and since I wasn’t able able to present my ideas clearly enough for his interpretation of my words to not diverge from my intentions, his criticism is totally valid coming from that perspective. I’m sure EY is quite exhausted seeing so many poorly-thought-out criticisms of his work, but ultimately (and unfortunately), motivation and hidden context doesn’t matter much when it comes to how people will interpret you.
But true and important.