Just some basic particulars (if you can call them that): he is not in the habit of carefully exploring alternative views to his own (instead he ridicules them without attempting to understand them); he seems to write as if both his deductions and assumptions are obvious rather than question them; he almost never tackles more current actual philosophical ideas (rather than occasionally paint them in an "obviously" ridiculous light by completely misunderstanding them); most importantly, he seems to present a definitive answer after definitive answer rather than seriously and systematically explore questions.

That is not to say that I don't occasionally agree with his conclusions, but his process lacks the originality and constant self-doubt that makes philosophy so entertaining and interesting. Instead, it offers dismissal or certainty -- stuff that may make religion or blog posts entertaining. But that's not philosophy.

Besides, my vague insults are pretty much the common view (which is actually far more dismissive than I have been). It is anyone in the small minority who considers Yudkowsky a philosopher that requires substantive justification. In any case, even if you find his writings convincing, Yudkowsky would still make for a very bad foray into philosophy, because he tends to make up his own nomenclature rather than use accepted one (and present age-old ideas as his own). His fondness of definitive answers and ridicule of others means his work mostly serves to confuse rather than enlighten anyone who is interested in what philosophers do, or what current interesting debates are taking place. Even if you disagree with all that, you would surely agree that a fringe thinker, unrecognized by the academic community and who's not recognized to have made a single original contribution to the field (pretty much by anyone) is probably not the best guide for a beginner.

> Besides, my vague insults are pretty much the common view (which is actually far more dismissive than I have been).

So why should I take the common view seriously? If vague insults are all professional philosophers have to offer, what's their value here?

So you disagree with his style, not his substance, and even you admit he's getting things right.

I didn't know tone policing/tone trolling was such an important part of philosophical discourse.

> and even you admit he's getting things right.

I said that I occasionally agree with his conclusions. I mostly don't. But I'm not the ultimate judge of correctness, and I can't give the final ruling on them one way or another (that's not how philosophy works). However:

> I didn't know tone policing/tone trolling was such an important part of philosophical discourse.

Not tone but process. Yudkowsky may be correct in the same way that the pope may be correct (BTW, I find both to occasionally raise a though-provoking issue), or both may inspire (different) people, but that makes neither of them philosophers because what they do isn't philosophy. I'll put it another way: your grandmother may make you soup when you're sick and it may (or may not) actually help you, but that doesn't mean she's practicing medicine.

The mere discussion, however, of "tone policing/tone trolling" is very much in line with what Yudkowsky does, which may best be described as expressing a certain political ideology regarding science, philosophy, knowledge, public discourse etc.. Everyone, of course, is entitled to their opinions and their ideologies, but that alone is not enough to make them philosophers, even if they try to keep their arguments consistent.

I also think that his obsession with the kinds of inverted reasoning, such as "anti-inductive markets" is serving an interest of his: by planting this meme in your head, you'll subconsciously apply it out of context, when his qualifications of reputation come up. He'll say "Oh but even if I had qualifications, you'd probably reject my claims, so I don't need qualifications". They (and his earlier co-author Robin Hanson) also like to reduce things to signaling, basically saying that education is just to show off and raise one's status by acquiring pieces of paper, but if you really want to get things done, it's more efficient to self-study and concentrate on the really important things, skipping all this mess that is education.

So if you eat these ideas at the right time, you won't find anything suspicious about him lacking any reputation, any qualifications. He's trying to sell you the idea that he's so much above the ridiculous ideas of the mainstream that he doesn't need to go among them an get tested by them, he tries to sell you that this is just signalling, the way a really rich person doesn't need to show off expensive items, or a big dog doesn't need to bark as much.

Another thing about the anti-inductive meme is that seeing the world thought these glasses makes you kind of paranoid. Because how can you know if the thing you conclude shouldn't be the exact opposite? You know, maybe the system figured out what you will think, it simulated you and now you are supposed to outsmart that system, etc. When in reality, the overwhelming majority of everyday things are straightforward and inductive and rarely go deeper than 1 or 2 levels of "simulating the other". But his focus on the superintelligent being makes you think subconsciously that this is the nature of the current world as well, and a lack of qualifications should actually be seen as a proof of skill, not as a counterevidence.

Maybe you say nobody would think that, but I did, some years ago. I got sucked into his writings and I was gullible. Since then I have learned a lot from other sources and can see much better how he rips off previous ideas, repackages them and creates a crazy ideology.

> They (and his earlier co-author Robin Hanson) also like to reduce things to signaling, basically saying that education is just to show off and raise one's status by acquiring pieces of paper, but if you really want to get things done, it's more efficient to self-study and concentrate on the really important things, skipping all this mess that is education.

You say it like it's not true. Traditional education is a mess. A lot of it is smoke and mirrors and signaling. Which is why online education is huge and growing.

> Traditional education is a mess.

True.

> but if you really want to get things done, it's more efficient to self-study and concentrate on the really important things, skipping all this mess that is education.

Also true, at least some of the time.

However, it does not follow that the uncredentialed person telling you that education doesn't matter is therefore right in the rest of what he/she is telling you.

> However, it does not follow that the uncredentialed person telling you that education doesn't matter is therefore right in the rest of what he/she is telling you.

Where did I say that it follows?

Also, AFAIK Robin Hanson is a full econ professor.

You didn't. I was noting the gap between what you said and what johann28 said.

If you really ended up thinking like that I think that is more reflective of your personality/mind than Yudkowsky's writings. Like, I don't mean this to be insulting, but normal people don't end up paranoid and anxious and worrying about what levels people are playing at and thinking that super intelligent beings are the nature of the world, after reading LW. Normal people say "Huh thats cool" and it makes for fun dinner table talks and at best comes up in real life if you are a contestant on a game show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0qjK3TWZE8

Yudkowsky isn't some devious mastermind trying to brainwash people into thinking wrong so he can. So he can what? Even if he was a devious mastermind who created a polemic work so as to get people to think wrong... what would his goal be?

I didn't end up actually paranoid, that's an exaggeration. But many people for whom this is the first encounter with these topics, do get confused and "brainwashed". Some people can't really understand the implications in the first place, so they of course won't be impacted.

I don't have enough time now, but at some point I may try to summarize the specific patterns of thought that are most problematic in their treatment of counterfactuality, acausality, simulations, free will, anti-inductivity, signaling etc.

I'm not saying he's devious. I think he probably believes what he says as far as I can tell or care. But it's irrelevant.

And about normal people: there are writings scattered around the internet about similar experiences and there are probably more in private exchanges (as the posts themselves describe). I even read about things akin to support groups. Of course I shouldn't blow this out of proportion, we aren't talking about masses of people here.

I'd be interested in reading this. You keep writing as if LW/Yudkowsky is very harmful,but you won't elaborate on what the danger is aside from "think wrong".

Like if people were donating all their money to A.I because of the Basilisk, or killing themselves while gambling because they've taken many worlds too far, or something I could see why you would be so urgent to warn people away from Yudkowsky. What is you are so concerned with?

> what they do isn't philosophy.

It's more philosophical than what most philosophers do, as long as they dismiss people out of hand.

Yudkowsky at least admits others have ideas worth engaging with.

That is a uncharitable caricature of pron's point. pron's main point was about methodology, not style. That is, pron is claiming that he is not rigorous. Since rigor is fundamental to practicing philosophy, it does cut to the substance of the work, not the style.

They like to emphasize and masturbate to that one paragraph in the Russel-Norvig AI textbook mentioning the concept of "Friendly AI" along with a citation to a Yudkowsky writing. Beyond that single case, I don't know any public "endorsement" of any of his ideas by experts of any related field (if you can call this one citation an endorsement at all).

Yes! Look up Roko's basilisk.

It's like someone wrote a lovecraft-style horror story, forgot that it was fiction, and totally lost their shit over it.

It used to be a banned discussion on LessWrong because it's supposedly a truth so horrifying that it'll destroy your mind as soon as you understand it.

.... if that's not cult behavior then I don't know what is!

Honestly, find me one person who believes that the Basilisk is a truth so horrifying that it will destroy your mind.

That is ridiculous. It isn't such a thing and no one believes it to be such a thing. That isn't why it was banned.

To make an analogy, say I believed I created some code, that if ran, would kill the person who was using the computer it ran on. Then I posted that code online.

In some-sense, that would be really dumb of me. Even if you don't believe that my code actually works, you can still be consistent when criticizing me for sharing it.

The second issue that maybe in the future, such a thing will be possible. Maybe computers and humans will be so integrated that you can kill people with malicious software.

Those are the reasons the Basilisk was banned. Do I think banning them was the appropriate action? No. It was Yudkowsky power-tripping cause hes arrogant. Is it as you or others make it out to be? No.

It is very kind of you to explain the situation to me.

Except that I've actually met the infamous Roko, and given your shitty explanation I seem to have a better handle on the issue than you do.

So, think about what that means for a second. Without knowing anything about me, your first reaction to seeing me disagree with you was to assume that I simply do not understand the issue as well as you do, and then to proceeded to lecture me on it in the most simplest and infantile way possible.

That right there? That kind of arrogance which makes you speak over whomever you are talking to in order to shove your view into their face, all the while assuming that you need to explain the most basic things to them? That's why I can't stand LWers. That's why you guys reek of being a cult with no actual interest in rationality.

But since you are so DESPERATE to defend Elizer (when I have not once said that I dislike him - something else that you would have noticed if you bothered to LISTEN), I'll let him speak for himself. Here's an excerpt on him talking about the basilisk.

"To reduce the number of hedons associated with something that should not have hedons associated with its discussion, I will refer to the subject of this discussion as the Babyfcker. The Babyfcker will be taken to be associated with UFAIs; no Friendly AI worthy of the name would do that sort of thing.

Point one: Suppose there were a flaw in your argument that the Babyfcker can't happen. I could not possibly talk publicly about this flaw.

...

Point four: If I could go back in time and ask Roko to quietly retract the Babyfcker post without explanation, I would most certainly do that instead. Unfortunately you can't change history, and I didn't get it right the first time."

You can read the rest of the rant here: https://www.reddit.com/r/LessWrong/comments/17y819/lw_uncens...

I'll humbly let the readership of HN decide for themselves what they think of this sort of philosophy.

Peace.

>assume that I simply do not understand the issue as well as you do

Not, I assumed you had different understanding. Maybe you do have a more accurate understanding of the situation but that isn't clear yet.

And as for giving a simple explanation? Why is that a bad thing? I want to communicate clearly so you can understand me.

>That's why I can't stand LWers.

I'm not a LWer. I don't have an account there. I've never interacted with the community at all. I've just read some of the posts.

>Here's an excerpt on him talking about the basilisk.

Which just supports my understanding.

As he says:

>Basically, the same obvious precautions you'd use if Lovecraft's Necronomicon was online and could be found using simple Google keywords - you wouldn't post anything which would cause anyone to enter those Google keywords, unless they'd been warned about the potential consequences.

Which is analogy akin to my coding one.

>But since you are so DESPERATE to defend Elizer

I think Elizier is a pretty messed up person. He clearly has mental issues. At the same time, I am very thankful to him/LW/HPMOR for personal reasons. Which is why I will step up to defend him when I think he/LW is being, I guess slandered?

> (when I have not once said that I dislike him - something else that you would have noticed if you bothered to LISTEN)

I never accused you of disliking him.

Honestly though, for as much as you've condemned my behavior in this discussion, I'm not the one repeatedly insulting people.

Please don't resort to personal insults on HN.