In particular, I think this manifests in part as an extreme lack of humility.
I just want to note that, based on my personal interactions with Chris, I experience Chris’s “extreme lack of humility” similarly to how I experience Eliezer’s “extreme lack of humility”:
in both cases, I think they have plausibly calibrated beliefs about having identified certain philosophical questions that are of crucial importance to the future of humanity, that most of the world is not taking seriously,[1] leading them to feel a particular flavor of frustration that people often interpret as an extreme lack of humility
in both cases, they are in some senses incredibly humble in their pursuit of truth, doing their utmost to be extremely honest with themselves about where they’re confused
I just want to note that, based on my personal interactions with Chris, I experience Chris’s “extreme lack of humility” similarly to how I experience Eliezer’s “extreme lack of humility”:
in both cases, I think they have plausibly calibrated beliefs about having identified certain philosophical questions that are of crucial importance to the future of humanity, that most of the world is not taking seriously,[1] leading them to feel a particular flavor of frustration that people often interpret as an extreme lack of humility
in both cases, they are in some senses incredibly humble in their pursuit of truth, doing their utmost to be extremely honest with themselves about where they’re confused
It feels worth noting that Chris Langan has written about Newcomb’s paradox in 1989, and that his resolution involves thinking in terms of being in a simulation, similarly to what Andrew Critch has written about.
I agree with this.
Thanks was looking for that link to his resolution of newcombs’ paradox.
Too funny! “You are “possessed” by Newcomb’s Demon, and whatever self-interest remains to you will make you take the black box only. (Q.E.D.)”