Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Guess I'm a rationalist now

scottaaronson.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 1001 posts

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#41

Post by junon »

t_mann wrote: post #24

> “You’re [X]?! The quantum physicist who’s always getting into arguments on the Internet, and who’s essentially always right, but who sustains an unreasonable amount of psychic damage in the process?” > “Yes,” I replied, not bothering to correct the “physicist” part. Didn't read much beyond that part. He'll fit right in with the rationalist crowd...

I got to that part, thought it was a joke, and then... it wasn't.

Stopped reading thereafter. Nobody speaking like this will have anything I want to hear.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#42

Post by colordrops »

loose-cannon wrote: post #36
felipeerias wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with trying to reason everything from first principles is that most things didn’t actually came about that way. Both our biology and other complex human affairs like societies and cultures evolved organically over long periods of time, responding to their environments and their competitors, building bit by bit, sometimes with an explicit goal but often without one. One can learn a lot from unicellular org…

Reducibility is usually a goal of intellectual pursuits? I don't see that as a fault.

What the person you are replying to is saying that some things are not reducible, i.e. the the vast array of complexity and detail is all relevant.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#43

Post by codehotter »

Fraterkes wrote: post #14

[flagged]

I view this as a political constraint, cf. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/lifeboat-games-and-backscra.... One's identity as Academic, Democrat, Zionist and so on demands certain sacrifices of you, sometimes of rationality. The worse the failure of empathy and rationality, the better a test of loyalty it is. For epistemic rationality, it would be best to https://paulgraham.com/identity.html, but for instrumental rationality it is not. Consequently, many people are reasonable only until certain topics come up, and it's generally worked around by steering the discussion to other topics.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#44

Post by derangedHorse »

amarcheschi wrote: post #31
wffurr wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure precisely it not very rational about that link. Did you have a specific point you were trying to make with it?

Yes, that they're not "rational". If you take a look at the biodiversity survey here https://reflectivealtruism.com/2024/12/27/human-biodiversity... 1/3 of the users at acx actually support flawed scientific theories that would explain iq on a scientific basis. The Lynn study on iq is also quite flawed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations If you want to read about human biodiversity, https://e…

Nothing about the article you posted in your first comment seems racist. You could argue that believing in the conclusions of Richard Lynn’s work makes someone racist, but to support that claim, you’d need to show that those who believe it do so out of willful ignorance of evidence that his science is flawed.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#45

Post by dcminter »

t_mann wrote: post #24

> “You’re [X]?! The quantum physicist who’s always getting into arguments on the Internet, and who’s essentially always right, but who sustains an unreasonable amount of psychic damage in the process?” > “Yes,” I replied, not bothering to correct the “physicist” part. Didn't read much beyond that part. He'll fit right in with the rationalist crowd...

Also...

> they gave off some (not all) of the vibes of a cult

...after describing his visit with an atmosphere that sounds extremely cult-like.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#46

Post by voidhorse »

contrarian1234 wrote: post #9

The article made me think deeper about what rubs me the wrong way about the whole movement I think there is some inherent tension btwn being "rational" about things and trying to reason about things from first principle.. And the general absolutist tone of the community. The people involved all seem very... Full of themselves ? They don't really ever show a sense of "hey, I've got a thought, maybe I haven't considere…

To me they have always seemed like a breed of "intellectuals" who only want to use knowledge to inflate their own egos and maintain a fragile superiority complex. They are't actually interested in the truth so much as they are interested in convincing you that they are right.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#47

Post by mjburgess »

amarcheschi wrote: post #31
wffurr wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure precisely it not very rational about that link. Did you have a specific point you were trying to make with it?

Yes, that they're not "rational". If you take a look at the biodiversity survey here https://reflectivealtruism.com/2024/12/27/human-biodiversity... 1/3 of the users at acx actually support flawed scientific theories that would explain iq on a scientific basis. The Lynn study on iq is also quite flawed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations If you want to read about human biodiversity, https://e…

A lot of "rationalists" of this kind are very poorly informed about statistical methodology, a condition they inherit from reading papers written in these pseudoscientific fields about people likewise very poorly informed.

This is a pathology that has not really been addressed in the large, anywhere, really. Very few in the applied sciences who understand statistical methodology, "leave their areas" -- and many areas that require it, would disappear if it entered.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#48

Post by derangedHorse »

junon wrote: post #41
t_mann wrote: post #24

> “You’re [X]?! The quantum physicist who’s always getting into arguments on the Internet, and who’s essentially always right, but who sustains an unreasonable amount of psychic damage in the process?” > “Yes,” I replied, not bothering to correct the “physicist” part. Didn't read much beyond that part. He'll fit right in with the rationalist crowd...

I got to that part, thought it was a joke, and then... it wasn't. Stopped reading thereafter. Nobody speaking like this will have anything I want to hear.

Is it not a joke? I’m pretty sure it was.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#49

Post by dcminter »

gooseus wrote: post #39

I've never thought ill of Scott Aaronson and have often admired him and his work when I stumble across it. However, reading this article about all these people at their "Galt's Gultch", I thought — "oh, I guess he's a rhinoceros now" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros_(play) Here's a bad joke for you all — What's the difference between a "rationalist" and "rationalizer"? Only the incentives.

Upvote for the play link - that's interesting and I hadn't heard of it before. Worthy of a top-level post IMO.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#50

Post by s1mplicissimus »

hiAndrewQuinn wrote: post #40
contrarian1234 wrote: post #9

The article made me think deeper about what rubs me the wrong way about the whole movement I think there is some inherent tension btwn being "rational" about things and trying to reason about things from first principle.. And the general absolutist tone of the community. The people involved all seem very... Full of themselves ? They don't really ever show a sense of "hey, I've got a thought, maybe I haven't considere…

>Maybe it's actually going to be rather benign and more boring than expected Maybe, but generally speaking, if I think people are playing around with technology which a lot of smart people think might end humanity as we know it, I would want them to stop until we are really sure it won't. Like, "less than a one in a million chance" sure. Those are big stakes. I would have opposed the Manhattan Project on the same pri…

> I don't hear people dismiss these risks very often as "You've just been reading too many science fiction novels" these days, which would have been the default response back in the 90s or 2000s.

I've recently stumbled across the theory that "it's gonna go away, just keep your head down" is the crisis response that has been taught to the generation that lived through the cold war, so that's how they act. That bit was in regards to climate change, but I can easily see it apply to AI as well (even though I personally believe that the whole "AI eat world" arc is only so popular due to marketing efforts of the corresponding industry)

Post reply on HN