Given how superficially insane Eliezer’s beliefs seem he has done a fantastic job of attracting support for his views.
Eliezer is popularizing his beliefs, not directly through his own writings, but by attracting people (such as conference speakers and this comment writer who is currently writing a general-audience book) who promote understanding of issues such as intelligence explosion, unfriendly AI and cryonics.
Eliezer is obviously not neurotypical. The non-neurotypical have a tough time making arguments that emotionally connect. Given that Eliezer has a massive non-comparative advantage in making such arguments we shouldn’t expect him to spend his time trying to become slightly better at doing so.
Eliezer might not have won the backing of people such as super-rationalist self-made tech billionaire Peter Thiel had Eliezer devoted less effort to rational arguments.
Given that Eliezer has a massive non-comparative advantage in making such arguments we shouldn’t expect him to spend his time trying to become slightly better at doing so.
Do you mean comparative disadvantage? Otherwise I can’t make sense of what you are trying to say. Not that I’d agree with that anyway, Eliezer is very good rhetorically, and I’m suspicious of psychological diagnoses performed over the internet.
By “massive non-comparative advantage” I meant he doesn’t have a comparative advantage.
I have twice talked with Eliezer in person, seen in person a few of his talks, watched several videos of him talking and for family reasons I have read a huge amount about the non-neurotypical.
By “massive non-comparative advantage” I meant he doesn’t have a comparative advantage.
??? So you mean he has a massive absolute advantage, but is also so hugely better at other things compared to normal people it’s still not worth his time??? Or does that actually mean that he has an absolute advantage of unspecified size, that happens to be very much non-comparative? What someone only vaguely familiar with economic terminology like me might call a “massively non-comparative advantage”?
Given how superficially insane Eliezer’s beliefs seem he has done a fantastic job of attracting support for his views.
Eliezer is popularizing his beliefs, not directly through his own writings, but by attracting people (such as conference speakers and this comment writer who is currently writing a general-audience book) who promote understanding of issues such as intelligence explosion, unfriendly AI and cryonics.
Eliezer is obviously not neurotypical. The non-neurotypical have a tough time making arguments that emotionally connect. Given that Eliezer has a massive non-comparative advantage in making such arguments we shouldn’t expect him to spend his time trying to become slightly better at doing so.
Eliezer might not have won the backing of people such as super-rationalist self-made tech billionaire Peter Thiel had Eliezer devoted less effort to rational arguments.
Do you mean comparative disadvantage? Otherwise I can’t make sense of what you are trying to say. Not that I’d agree with that anyway, Eliezer is very good rhetorically, and I’m suspicious of psychological diagnoses performed over the internet.
By “massive non-comparative advantage” I meant he doesn’t have a comparative advantage.
I have twice talked with Eliezer in person, seen in person a few of his talks, watched several videos of him talking and for family reasons I have read a huge amount about the non-neurotypical.
??? So you mean he has a massive absolute advantage, but is also so hugely better at other things compared to normal people it’s still not worth his time??? Or does that actually mean that he has an absolute advantage of unspecified size, that happens to be very much non-comparative? What someone only vaguely familiar with economic terminology like me might call a “massively non-comparative advantage”?