To summarize the argument made against Yudkowsky’s reasoning: (see my comment below on why the strikethrough)
Here’s a summary of the original counter arguments that commenters have brought against Yudkowsky :
1 - Hillary is not necessary a better B player than Trump 2 - existing level B players might deluding themselves that they are making a good job at maintaining the status quo 3 - the local optima might be surrounded by a valley of worse equilibrium, but only if you care about the wellbeing of the whole world equally: if you care only for America’s interest, then other equilibria might be more beneficial 4 - Trump was actually testing the waters with his moves, when elected he is going to revert to a saner, albeit different, policy 5 - he is weighting personal experience regarding level B too much, possibly such a level don’t exists or its importance isn’t too high 6 - Trump’s move wasn’t bad: Yudkwosky didn’t take into account the support of other intellectuals in the same sphere 7 - the letter of those condemning Trump weren’t motivated by real preoccupation with Trump declarations but by political enmity
I’ll group the answers thusly:
the letter was real but it didn’t matter: 4, 6, 7
Clinton is not a better B player: 1
level B isn’t real: 2, 5
outside equilibria are worse only for others: 3
Thank you to everybody. This was a very productive and high quality discussion, to me a strong proof that LessWrong is far from dead.
6 - Trump’s move wasn’t bad: Yudkwosky didn’t take into account the support of other intellectuals in the same sphere
Both user:hg00 and I argued that Eliezer stopped searching for expert opinions in a motivated way, but I concluded that relying on expert opinion, which ultimately appears to indicate that Trump will probably have more negative effects on our foreign policy than Clinton, was correct anyway. The OP specifies that the purpose of the discussion is to evaluate methodology, and remains silent on the evaluation of conclusions. I request that the summary you’ve written be edited to reflect this. (Removing the phrase ‘Trump’s move wasn’t bad’ seems sufficient to me; maybe explicitly mention motivated cognition?)
I also tentatively suggest appending the summary to the OP once you expect that you won’t have to edit it again.
The OP specifies that the purpose of the discussion is to evaluate methodology, and remains silent on the evaluation of conclusions. I request that the summary you’ve written be edited to reflect this.
I realized just now that the summary could have been taken as “here’s why Yudkowsky was wrong”, while for me it has always been: “here’s people thought about why Yudkowsky could be wrong”.
It is intended purely as a summary, not an endorsement. I will retain point n° 6, but I’ll edit to a more neutral first sentence.
To summarize the argument made against Yudkowsky’s reasoning:(see my comment below on why the strikethrough)Here’s a summary of the original counter arguments that commenters have brought against Yudkowsky :
1 - Hillary is not necessary a better B player than Trump
2 - existing level B players might deluding themselves that they are making a good job at maintaining the status quo
3 - the local optima might be surrounded by a valley of worse equilibrium, but only if you care about the wellbeing of the whole world equally: if you care only for America’s interest, then other equilibria might be more beneficial
4 - Trump was actually testing the waters with his moves, when elected he is going to revert to a saner, albeit different, policy
5 - he is weighting personal experience regarding level B too much, possibly such a level don’t exists or its importance isn’t too high
6 - Trump’s move wasn’t bad: Yudkwosky didn’t take into account the support of other intellectuals in the same sphere
7 - the letter of those condemning Trump weren’t motivated by real preoccupation with Trump declarations but by political enmity
I’ll group the answers thusly:
the letter was real but it didn’t matter: 4, 6, 7
Clinton is not a better B player: 1
level B isn’t real: 2, 5
outside equilibria are worse only for others: 3
Thank you to everybody.
This was a very productive and high quality discussion, to me a strong proof that LessWrong is far from dead.
Upvoted. Thank you for hosting.
Both user:hg00 and I argued that Eliezer stopped searching for expert opinions in a motivated way, but I concluded that relying on expert opinion, which ultimately appears to indicate that Trump will probably have more negative effects on our foreign policy than Clinton, was correct anyway. The OP specifies that the purpose of the discussion is to evaluate methodology, and remains silent on the evaluation of conclusions. I request that the summary you’ve written be edited to reflect this. (Removing the phrase ‘Trump’s move wasn’t bad’ seems sufficient to me; maybe explicitly mention motivated cognition?)
I also tentatively suggest appending the summary to the OP once you expect that you won’t have to edit it again.
I realized just now that the summary could have been taken as “here’s why Yudkowsky was wrong”, while for me it has always been: “here’s people thought about why Yudkowsky could be wrong”.
It is intended purely as a summary, not an endorsement. I will retain point n° 6, but I’ll edit to a more neutral first sentence.
I’ll write an ETA reflecting this.