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

231–240 of 1001 posts

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#231

Post by kypro »

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…

There are few things I hold strong opinions on, but where I do if they're also out of step with what most people think I am very vocal about them.

I see this in rationalist spaces too – it doesn't really make sense for people to talk about things that they believe in strongly but that 95%+ of the public also believe in (like the existence of air), or that they don't have a strong opinion on.

I am a very vocal doomer on AI because I predict with high probability it's going to be very bad for humanity and this is an opinion which, although shared by some, is quite controversial and probably only held by 30% of the public. Given the importance of the subject, my confidence, and that fact I feel the vast majority of people are even wrong or are significantly underweighting caetrosphohic risks, I have to be vocal about it.

Do I acknowledge I might be wrong? Sure, but for me the probability is low enough that I'm comfortable making very strong and unqualified statements about what I believe will happen. I suspect others in the rationalist community like Eliezer Yudkowsky think similarly.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#232

Post by NoGravitas »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #165
dcminter wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, Guru Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote an essay about how people asking "This isn’t a cult , is it?" bugs him, so it's fine actually. https://www.readthesequences.com/Cultish-Countercultishness

Hank Hill: Are y'all with the cult?

Cult member: It's not a cult! It's an organization that promotes love and..

Hank Hill: This is it.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#233

Post by os2warpman »

Rationalists as a movement remind me of the individuals who claim to be serious about history but are only interested in a very, VERY specific set of six years in one very specific part of the world.

And boy are they extremely interested in ONLY those six years.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#234

Post by retRen87 »

kragen wrote: post #172
retRen87 wrote: post #91

He already had a rationalist “coming out” like ages ago. Dude just make up your mind https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=2537

While this was an interesting and enjoyable read, it doesn't seem to be a “rationalist ‘coming out’”. On the contrary, he's just saying he would have liked going to a ‘rationalist’ meeting.

The last paragraph discusses how he's resisted the label and then he closes with “the rationalists have walked the walk and rationaled the rational, and thus they’ve given me no choice but to stand up and be counted as one of them.”

He’s clearly identifying as a rationalist there

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#235

Post by adastra22 »

gausswho wrote: post #215
parpfish wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my many peeves has been the way that people misuse the term “slippery slope” as evidence for their stance. “If X, then surely Y will follow! It’s a slippery slope! We can’t allow X!” They call out the name of the fallacy they are committing BY NAME and think that it somehow supports their conclusion?

I rhetorically agree it's not a good argument, but its use as a cautionary metaphor predates its formalization as a logical fallacy. It's summoning is not proof in and of itself (i.e. the 1st amendment). It suggests a concern rather than demonstrates. It's lazy, and a good habit to rid oneself of. But its presence does not invalidate the argument.

Yes, it does. The problem with the slippery slope is that the slope itself is not argued for. You haven’t shown the direct, inescapable causal connection between the current action and the perceived very negative future outcome. You’ve just stated/assumed it. That’s what the fallacy is.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#236

Post by yamazakiwi »

bilbo0s wrote: post #201
dkarl wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a conflict as old as time. What do you do when an argument leads to an unexpected conclusion? I think there are two good responses: "There's something going on here, so let's dig into it," or, "There's something going on here, but I'm not going to make time to dig into it." Both equally valid. In real life, the conversation too often ends up being, "This has to be wrong, and you're an obnoxious nerd for botherin…

Might kind of point to real life people having too much of what is now called, "rationality" , and very little of what used to be called "wisdom" ?

Wisdom tends to resemble shallow aphorisms despite being framed as universal. Rather than interrogating wisdom's relevance or depth, many people simply repeat it uncritically as a shortcut to insight. This reflects more about how people use wisdom than the content itself, but I believe that behavior contributes to our perception of the importance of wisdom.

It frequently reduces complex problems into comfortable oversimplifications.

Maybe you don't think that is real wisdom, and maybe that's sort of your point, but then what does real wisdom look like? Should wisdom make you considerate of the multiple contexts it does and doesn't affect? Maybe the issue is we need to better understand how to evaluate and use wisdom. People who truly understand a piece of wisdom should communicate deeply rather than parroting platitudes.

Also to be frank, wisdom is a way of controlling how others perceive a problem, and is a great way to manipulate others by propping up ultimatums or forcing scope. Much of past wisdom is unhelpful or highly irrelevant to modern life.

e.g. "Good things come to those who wait."

Passive waiting rarely produces results. Initiative, timing, and strategic action tend to matter more than patience.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#237

Post by jandrese »

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…

They remind me of the "Effective Altruism" crowd who get completely wound up in these hypothetical logical thought exercises and end up coming to insane conclusions that they feel trapped in because they got there using pure logic. Not realizing that their initial conditions were highly artificial so any conclusion they reach is only of academic value.

There is a term for this. "Getting stuck up your own butt." It wouldn't be so bad except that said people often take on an air of absolute superiority because they used "only logic" and in their head they can not be wrong. Many people end up thinking like this as teenagers or 20 somethings, but most will have someone in their life who smacks them over the head and tells them to stop being so foolish, but if you have enough money and the Internet you can insulate yourself from that kind of oversight.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#239

Post by zbentley »

thom wrote: post #227
matthewdgreen wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My impression is that many rationalists enjoy believing that they update their beliefs, but in practice they're human and just as attached to preconceived notions as anyone else. But if you go around telling everyone that updating is your super-power, you're going to be a lot less humble about your own failures to do so. If you want to see how human and tribal rationalists are, go criticize the movement as an outside…

Yes, I've never met anyone who stated they have "strong opinions, weakly held" who wasn't A) some kind of arsehole and B) lying.

I’ve met a few people who walked that walk without being assholes … to others. They tended to have a fairly intense amount of self criticism/self hatred, though. That was more palatable than ego, to be sure, but isn’t likely broadly applicable.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#240

Post by nradov »

pavlov wrote: post #218
nradov wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When railroads were first being built across the continental USA, those companies also had high valuations (for the time). Most of them ultimately went bankrupt or were purchased for a fraction of their peak valuation. But the tracks remained, and many of those routes are still in use today.

And today the railroad system in the USA sucks compared to other developed countries and even China. It turns out that boom-and-bust capitalism isn’t great for building something that needs to evolve over centuries. Perhaps American AI efforts will one day be viewed similarly. “Yeah, they had an early rush, lots of innovation, high valuations, and robber barons competing. Today it’s just stale old infra despite the h…

Nope. USA #1:

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/highest-railway-cargo-tr...

Post reply on HN