[deleted]
Guess I'm a rationalist now
131–140 of 1001 posts
Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
It's possible, but I think that's just a general human response when you feel like you're trapped between a rock and a hard place. I don't buy the marketing angle, because it doesn't actually make sense to me. Fear draws eyeballs, sure, but it just seems otherwise nakedly counterproductive, like a burger chain advertising itself on the brutality of its factory farms.
It's also reasonable as a Pascal's wager type of thing. If you can't affect the outcome, just prepare for the eventuality that it will work out because if it doesn't you'll be dead anyway.
Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now
#133The 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…
Rationalists have always rubbed me the wrong way too but your argument against AI doomerism is weird. If you care about first principles, how about the precautionary principle? "Maybe it's actually benign" is not a good argument for moving ahead with potentially world ending technology.
I don't think "maybe it's benign" is where anti doomers are coming from, more like, "there are also costs to not doing things".
The doomer utilitarian arguments often seem to involve some sort of infinity or really large numbers (much like EAs) which result in various kinds of philosophical mugging.
In particular, the doomer plans invariably result in some need for draconian centralised control. Some kind of body or system that can tell everyone what to do with (of course) doomers in charge.
Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now
#134The 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…
My main problem with the movement is their emphasis on Bayesianism in conjunction with an almost total neglect of Popperian epistemology. In my opinion, there can’t be a meaningful distinction made between rational and irrational without Popper. Popper injects an epistemic humility that Bayesianism, taken alone, can miss. I think that aligns well with your observation.
So what's the difference between Bayesianism and Popperian epistemology?
Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now
#135The 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…
Yeah the "rational" part always seemed a smokescreen for the ability to produce and ingest their own and their associates methane gases. I get it, I enjoyed being told I'm a super genius always right quantum physicist mathematician by the girls at Stanford too. But holy hell man, have some class, maybe consider there's more good to be done in rural Indiana getting some dirt under those nails..
It feels like a shield of sorts, "I am a rationalist therefore my opinion has no emotional load, it's just facts bro how dare you get upset at me telling xyz is such-and-such you are being irrational do your own research"
but I don't know enough about it, I'm just trolling.
Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now
#136[flagged]
I don't see how that's any more "wanker" then this famous saying by Socrates's; Western thought is wankers all the way down.
> Although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is – for he knows nothing, and thinks he knows. I neither know nor think I know.
Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now
#137I'm currently reading Yudkowsky's "Rationality: from AI to zombies". Not my first try, since the book is just a collection of blog posts and I found it a bit hard to swallow due its repetitiveness, so I gave up after the first 50 "chapters" the first time I tried. Now I'm enjoying it way more, probably because I'm more interested in the topic now. For those who haven't delved(ha!) into his work or have been pushed ba…
I think there is an arbitrage going on where STEM types who lack background in philosophy, literature, history are super impressed by basic ideas from those subjects being presented to them by stealth. Not saying this is you, but these topics have been discussed for thousands of years, so it should at least be surprising that Yudkowsky is breaking new ground.
I think you’re mostly right.
But also that it isn’t what the Yudkowsky is (was?) trying to do with it. I think he’s trying to distill useful tools which increase baseline rationality. Religions have this. It’s what the original philosophers are missing. (At least as taught, happy to hear counter examples)
Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now
#138The 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…
Implicit in calling yourself a rationalist is the idea that other people are not thinking rationally. There are a lot of “we see the world as it really is” ideologies, and you can only ascribe to one if you have a certain sense of self-assuredness that doesn't lend itself to healthy debate.
Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now
#139I'm currently reading Yudkowsky's "Rationality: from AI to zombies". Not my first try, since the book is just a collection of blog posts and I found it a bit hard to swallow due its repetitiveness, so I gave up after the first 50 "chapters" the first time I tried. Now I'm enjoying it way more, probably because I'm more interested in the topic now. For those who haven't delved(ha!) into his work or have been pushed ba…
I think there is an arbitrage going on where STEM types who lack background in philosophy, literature, history are super impressed by basic ideas from those subjects being presented to them by stealth. Not saying this is you, but these topics have been discussed for thousands of years, so it should at least be surprising that Yudkowsky is breaking new ground.
To the Stem-enlightened mind, the classical understanding and pedagogy of such ideas is underwhelming, vague, and riddled with language-game problems, compared to the precision a mathematically-rooted idea has.
They're rederiving all this stuff not out of obstinacy, but because they prefer it. I don't really identify with rationalism per se, but I'm with them on this--the humanities are over-cooked and a humanity education tends to be a tedious slog through outmoded ideas divorced from reality
Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now
#140>"frankly, that they gave off some (not all) of the vibes of a cult, with Eliezer as guru. Eliezer writes in parables and koans. He teaches that the fate of life on earth hangs in the balance, that the select few who understand the stakes have the terrible burden of steering the future"
One of the funniest and most accurate turns of phrases in my mind is Charles Stross' characterization of rationalists as "duck typed Evangelicals". I've come to the conclusion that American atheists just don't exist, in particular Californians. Five minutes after they leave organized religion they're in a techno cult that fuses chosen people myths, their version of the Book of Revelation, gnosticism and what have you.
I used to work abroad in Shenzhen for a few years and despite meeting countless of people as interested in and obsessed with technology, if not more than the people mentioned in this blogpost, there's just no corellary to this. There's no millenarian obsession over machines taking over the world, bizarre trust in rationalism or cult like compounds full of socially isolated new age prophets.