I think I am in the same position as you are (uninitiated but curious) and I had the same immediate reaction that Pei was more convincing. However, for me, I think this was the result of two factors
Pei is a Professor
Pei treated the interview like a conversation with someone who has read a couple books and that’s about it.
Maybe the 2nd point isn’t entirely true, but that was what immediately stuck out after thinking about why I was drawn to Pei’s arguments. Once I eliminated his status as a barometer for his arguments… it just became (1) an issue of my own lack of knowledge and (2) the tone of the responses.
For one thing, why the hell should I understand this in the first place? This is a dialogue between two prominent AI researchers. What I would expect from such a dialogue would be exactly what I would expect from sitting in on a graduate philosophy seminar or a computer science colloquium—I would be able to follow the gist of it, but not the gritty details. I would expect to hear some complex arguments that would require a couple textbooks and a dozen tabs open in my browser to be able to follow.
But I was able to understand Pei’s arguments and play with them! If solving these kinds of conceptual problems is this easy, I might try to take over the world myself.
Not to say that the appearance of “complexity” is necessary for a good argument (EY’s essays are proof), but here it seems like this lack of complexity (or as someone else said, the appeal to common sense) is a warning for the easily persuaded. Rereading with these things in mind illuminates the discussion a bit better.
I was actually a bit depressed by this dialogue. It seemed like an earnest (but maybe a little over the top with the LW references) attempt by lukeprog to communicate interesting ideas. I may be setting my expectations a little high, but Pei seemed to think he was engaging an undergraduate asking about sorting algorithms.
Of course, I could be completely misinterpreting things. I thought I would share my thought process after I came to the same conclusion as you did.
I may be setting my expectations a little high, but Pei seemed to think he was engaging an undergraduate asking about sorting algorithms.
And he thought the undergrad terribly naive for not understanding that all sorting algorithms are actually just bubble sort.
This is why I find that unless the individual is remarkably open—to the point of being peculiar—it is usually pointless to try to communicate across status barriers. Status makes people (have the tendency and social incentives that make them act) stupid when it comes to comprehending others.
This is a dialogue between two prominent AI researchers.
What? This was a dialog between Pei and lukeprog, right?
Of course, I could be completely misinterpreting things. I thought I would share my thought process after I came to the same conclusion as you did.
I’m curious about what you mean by the appellation “prominent AI researcher” that you would apply it to lukeprog, and whether he considers himself as a member of that category.
I think I am in the same position as you are (uninitiated but curious) and I had the same immediate reaction that Pei was more convincing. However, for me, I think this was the result of two factors
Pei is a Professor
Pei treated the interview like a conversation with someone who has read a couple books and that’s about it.
Maybe the 2nd point isn’t entirely true, but that was what immediately stuck out after thinking about why I was drawn to Pei’s arguments. Once I eliminated his status as a barometer for his arguments… it just became (1) an issue of my own lack of knowledge and (2) the tone of the responses.
For one thing, why the hell should I understand this in the first place? This is a dialogue between two prominent AI researchers. What I would expect from such a dialogue would be exactly what I would expect from sitting in on a graduate philosophy seminar or a computer science colloquium—I would be able to follow the gist of it, but not the gritty details. I would expect to hear some complex arguments that would require a couple textbooks and a dozen tabs open in my browser to be able to follow.
But I was able to understand Pei’s arguments and play with them! If solving these kinds of conceptual problems is this easy, I might try to take over the world myself.
Not to say that the appearance of “complexity” is necessary for a good argument (EY’s essays are proof), but here it seems like this lack of complexity (or as someone else said, the appeal to common sense) is a warning for the easily persuaded. Rereading with these things in mind illuminates the discussion a bit better.
I was actually a bit depressed by this dialogue. It seemed like an earnest (but maybe a little over the top with the LW references) attempt by lukeprog to communicate interesting ideas. I may be setting my expectations a little high, but Pei seemed to think he was engaging an undergraduate asking about sorting algorithms.
Of course, I could be completely misinterpreting things. I thought I would share my thought process after I came to the same conclusion as you did.
And he thought the undergrad terribly naive for not understanding that all sorting algorithms are actually just bubble sort.
This is why I find that unless the individual is remarkably open—to the point of being peculiar—it is usually pointless to try to communicate across status barriers. Status makes people (have the tendency and social incentives that make them act) stupid when it comes to comprehending others.
That’s an incredibly sweeping statement. Are all pop-sci publications useless?
Reference.
Do you think that generalises to academics? Wouldn’t a researcher who never changed their mind about anything be dismissed as a hidebound fogey?
What? This was a dialog between Pei and lukeprog, right?
I’m curious about what you mean by the appellation “prominent AI researcher” that you would apply it to lukeprog, and whether he considers himself as a member of that category.