As usual, I note once again that Eliezer merely denies my reasonable interpretations of his writing, without any specifics or any explanation.
This post by Eliezer assumes that rationalists want to evangelize non-rationalists, and that they want to join together to do “all the work that needs doing to fix up this world.” If Eliezer believes something different, he could explain why what he wrote sounds the way it sounds, instead of making yet another baseless snide comment about me. His practice of issuing long pronouncements and then labeling people as “getting it” or “not getting it” calls to mind a priest more than a scientist.
… or you could take a minute to think what he might mean. What I came up with in a few seconds is:
“Most people are altruistic to some extent. However, altruism is a tricky problem—most people are not particularly effective at it. Since altruism is common, many rationalists are altruistic, and they will want to do better. This will take some effort.”
As usual, I note once again that Eliezer merely denies my reasonable interpretations of his writing, without any specifics or any explanation.
This post by Eliezer assumes that rationalists want to evangelize non-rationalists, and that they want to join together to do “all the work that needs doing to fix up this world.” If Eliezer believes something different, he could explain why what he wrote sounds the way it sounds, instead of making yet another baseless snide comment about me. His practice of issuing long pronouncements and then labeling people as “getting it” or “not getting it” calls to mind a priest more than a scientist.
… or you could take a minute to think what he might mean. What I came up with in a few seconds is:
“Most people are altruistic to some extent. However, altruism is a tricky problem—most people are not particularly effective at it. Since altruism is common, many rationalists are altruistic, and they will want to do better. This will take some effort.”
How did I do, EY?