Some of the awkward personal details which are so deliciously expounded upon come close to character assassination. Shame on the author, going for the cheap shots. I can just imagine an exposé of the very same style used to denigrate, say, Alan Turing.
That’s only true if you read everything as judgement. In my opinion, the author cared much more about describing impressions than about rating things on any overarching scale, let alone a basic like/dislike scale.
I would except LW/MIRI to be antifragile to most mainstream media criticism. Especially to articles that tell a story of how LW is strange and important.
Don’t underestimate the Harper’s readership. If any one of those encounters the subject again, they’re prone to remember “haha, yea I read about those, something about a guy who can’t control his face or something?”, have a good laugh and move on. That kind of stuff is much more salient than some cursory pointers at some arguments, mostly with a one sentence “debunking” following.
The author has snuck in so many “these people are crazy”, “these people actually don’t have a clue” and “these people are full of themselves” counterpoints, each of which is presented in a much more authoritative way than presenting MIRI’s/CFAR’s arguments:
“Look around. If they were effective, rational people, would they be here? Something a little weird, no?” I walked outside for air.
This is the voice of god sneaking in and impressing on readers what they should think. Nice people, don’t waste your time nor your money.
I would except LW/MIRI to be antifragile to most mainstream media criticism.
“Criticism” is a nice phrase when we’re talking about parading people’s bodily shortcomings and “crazy” idiosyncrasies in lieu of actual counterpoints. Also, what is the goal of MIRI, if not to build legitimacy to eventually gain traction in specialist circles? People who, before seriously engaging or affiliating themselves, may just google MIRI and come across a certain Harper’s article about a couple of “self-satisfied”, self-taught apparent nut cases who score high on the crackpot index.
“Look around. If they were effective, rational people, would they be here? Something a little weird, no?” I walked outside for air.
But at the same time, the article does mention that Vassar got his $500,000 from Peter Thiel to start MetaMed. It mentions that the IQ average is 138 without any questioning of that figure. There a mention a women who invented the term “open source” is in attendence the one event he attended.
I would expect that the average Harper’s reader is in the humanties and get’s the impression: “Those are strange nerds, that seem to do something I don’t understand and that currently try to reorganize the world as they like via technology.”
There nothing wrong with appearing strange if you appear influential.
Also, what is the goal of MIRI, if not to build legitimacy to eventually gain traction in specialist circles?
Building traction in the AI community is about writing publishable papers and going to the industry conferences.
It also seems like it’s rather FHI role to build “legitimacy” than it’s MIRI role.
I liked the article on a personal level, but as PR I agree more with Kawoomba. It seems like a lot of people invested time into making this article well-informed and balanced, yet the result is a (mild) PR net-negative, albeit an entertaining one. We have positive associations with most of the things the article talks about, so we’re likely to underestimate the effect of the article’s negative priming and framing on a typical reader (which may include other journalists, and thereby affect our perception in future articles).
The article wants readers to think that Vassar has delusions of grandeur and Thiel is a fascist, so linking the two more tightly isn’t necessarily an effort to make either one look better. And there’s totally such a thing as bad press, especially when your main goal is to sway computer science types, not get the general public to notice you. This at best adds noise and shiny distractions to attempts to talk about LW/MIRI’s AI views around the water cooler.
It’s true FHI and FLI are more PR-oriented than MIRI, but that doesn’t mean it’s FHI’s job to produce useful news stories and MIRI’s job to produce silly or harmful ones. Better to just not make headlines (and reduce the risk of inoculating people against MIRI’s substantive ideas), unless there’s a plausible causal pathway from the article to ‘AGI risk is reduced’.
We have positive associations with most of the things the article talks about, so we’re likely to underestimate the effect of the article’s negative priming and framing on a typical reader
I think hostile media bias is stronger. Priors indicate that the average person on LW while have a more negative view of the article than warranted.
The article wants readers to think that Vassar has delusions of grandeur
I don’t think the average person watching Vassar’s Tedx talk would get the same impression as someone reading that article.
Thiel is a fascist
If that’s what he wanted to do he would have made a point about what Palantir Technologies does. Maybe remind the readers about Palantir Technologies responsiblity for the attempt to smear Glenn Greenwald and destroy his career.
Instead the author just points out that Palantir is a nerdy name that comes from Lord of the Rings. Even if the author hasn’t heard of the episode with Glenn Greenwald, leaving out that Palantir is a defensive contractor that builds software for the NSA is a conscious choice that someone who wanted to portray Thiel as a facist wouldn’t make. The author went for “bunch of strange nerds” instead of “facists”.
And there’s totally such a thing as bad press, especially when your main goal is to sway computer science types
I don’t think that’s the audience that Harper’s magazine has. That’s not for whom a journalist in that magazine writes.
Did you had any negative water cooler discussions with people because of that article?
That makes sense. I’d only add that the readers will probably form a range of opinions, not all have one opinion, as you appear to suggest.
But anyone’s attention is limited, and it naturally goes to what they’re unfamiliar with. When you, as one in the know, read that article, many of the rationalist talking points were familiar to you and didn’t register much. A reader new to this would use up much of his/her attention on those parts, and less on mundane things like body shapes.
For starters, Turing had a high pitched stammer, extremely yellow teeth, and noticeably dirty fingernails (even though he was often seen biting them). No doubt, a less than sympathetic investigator would have found many more such things to mention in an article about him.
Some of the awkward personal details which are so deliciously expounded upon come close to character assassination. Shame on the author, going for the cheap shots. I can just imagine an exposé of the very same style used to denigrate, say, Alan Turing.
Could have been much worse. He didn’t even define the basilisk or spend half the article discussing it—or frozen chopped-off heads for that matter.
That’s only true if you read everything as judgement. In my opinion, the author cared much more about describing impressions than about rating things on any overarching scale, let alone a basic like/dislike scale.
Yet his readers will form an opinion, and you bet that’s gonna be their opinion til kingdom come.
The connoisseur of literature in me appreciates his menagerie of the strange elephant men, his collection of curios.
But the consequentialist in me is pissed off. (#RiddickQuotesInUnlikelyPlaces)
No. Most readers will soon forget whatever they read.
There’s also hostile media bias. It’s natural to consider neutral articles as biased against oneselves.
I don’t think there a reason to be. The saying that there’s no such thing as bad PR exist for a reason.
I would except LW/MIRI to be antifragile to most mainstream media criticism. Especially to articles that tell a story of how LW is strange and important.
Don’t underestimate the Harper’s readership. If any one of those encounters the subject again, they’re prone to remember “haha, yea I read about those, something about a guy who can’t control his face or something?”, have a good laugh and move on. That kind of stuff is much more salient than some cursory pointers at some arguments, mostly with a one sentence “debunking” following.
The author has snuck in so many “these people are crazy”, “these people actually don’t have a clue” and “these people are full of themselves” counterpoints, each of which is presented in a much more authoritative way than presenting MIRI’s/CFAR’s arguments:
This is the voice of god sneaking in and impressing on readers what they should think. Nice people, don’t waste your time nor your money.
“Criticism” is a nice phrase when we’re talking about parading people’s bodily shortcomings and “crazy” idiosyncrasies in lieu of actual counterpoints. Also, what is the goal of MIRI, if not to build legitimacy to eventually gain traction in specialist circles? People who, before seriously engaging or affiliating themselves, may just google MIRI and come across a certain Harper’s article about a couple of “self-satisfied”, self-taught apparent nut cases who score high on the crackpot index.
But at the same time, the article does mention that Vassar got his $500,000 from Peter Thiel to start MetaMed. It mentions that the IQ average is 138 without any questioning of that figure. There a mention a women who invented the term “open source” is in attendence the one event he attended.
I would expect that the average Harper’s reader is in the humanties and get’s the impression: “Those are strange nerds, that seem to do something I don’t understand and that currently try to reorganize the world as they like via technology.”
There nothing wrong with appearing strange if you appear influential.
Building traction in the AI community is about writing publishable papers and going to the industry conferences.
It also seems like it’s rather FHI role to build “legitimacy” than it’s MIRI role.
I liked the article on a personal level, but as PR I agree more with Kawoomba. It seems like a lot of people invested time into making this article well-informed and balanced, yet the result is a (mild) PR net-negative, albeit an entertaining one. We have positive associations with most of the things the article talks about, so we’re likely to underestimate the effect of the article’s negative priming and framing on a typical reader (which may include other journalists, and thereby affect our perception in future articles).
The article wants readers to think that Vassar has delusions of grandeur and Thiel is a fascist, so linking the two more tightly isn’t necessarily an effort to make either one look better. And there’s totally such a thing as bad press, especially when your main goal is to sway computer science types, not get the general public to notice you. This at best adds noise and shiny distractions to attempts to talk about LW/MIRI’s AI views around the water cooler.
It’s true FHI and FLI are more PR-oriented than MIRI, but that doesn’t mean it’s FHI’s job to produce useful news stories and MIRI’s job to produce silly or harmful ones. Better to just not make headlines (and reduce the risk of inoculating people against MIRI’s substantive ideas), unless there’s a plausible causal pathway from the article to ‘AGI risk is reduced’.
I think hostile media bias is stronger. Priors indicate that the average person on LW while have a more negative view of the article than warranted.
I don’t think the average person watching Vassar’s Tedx talk would get the same impression as someone reading that article.
If that’s what he wanted to do he would have made a point about what Palantir Technologies does. Maybe remind the readers about Palantir Technologies responsiblity for the attempt to smear Glenn Greenwald and destroy his career.
Instead the author just points out that Palantir is a nerdy name that comes from Lord of the Rings. Even if the author hasn’t heard of the episode with Glenn Greenwald, leaving out that Palantir is a defensive contractor that builds software for the NSA is a conscious choice that someone who wanted to portray Thiel as a facist wouldn’t make. The author went for “bunch of strange nerds” instead of “facists”.
I don’t think that’s the audience that Harper’s magazine has. That’s not for whom a journalist in that magazine writes.
Did you had any negative water cooler discussions with people because of that article?
That makes sense. I’d only add that the readers will probably form a range of opinions, not all have one opinion, as you appear to suggest.
But anyone’s attention is limited, and it naturally goes to what they’re unfamiliar with. When you, as one in the know, read that article, many of the rationalist talking points were familiar to you and didn’t register much. A reader new to this would use up much of his/her attention on those parts, and less on mundane things like body shapes.
Dude was crazy about long-distance running.
Care to elaborate and/or give examples?
For starters, Turing had a high pitched stammer, extremely yellow teeth, and noticeably dirty fingernails (even though he was often seen biting them). No doubt, a less than sympathetic investigator would have found many more such things to mention in an article about him.
And he was gay (before the word ‘gay’ meant that).