Guess I'm a rationalist now • Hacker News Board

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#531

Post by Retric » Thu, Jun 19, 2025, 9:52 PM UTC

mettamage wrote: post #514

lisper wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one can levy a much more specific critique of rationalism: rationalism is in some sense self-defeating. If you are rational you will necessarily conclude that the fundamental dynamic that drives the (interesting parts of) the universe is Darwinian evolution, which is not rational. It blindly selects for reproductive fitness at the expense of all else. If you are a gene, you can probably produce more offspring…

I always liken this to that we’re all asteroids floating in space. There’s no free will and everything is determined. We just see the whole thing unfold from one conscious perspective. Emotionally I don’t subscribe to this view. Rationally I do. My critique for rational people is that they don’t seem to fully take experience into account. It’s assumptions + rationality + experience/data + whatever strong inclinations…

> no free will

That always seemed like a meaningless argument to me. To an outside observer free will is indistinguishable from a random process over some range of possibilities. You aren’t going to randomly go to sleep with your hand in a fire, there’s some hard coded biology preventing that choice but that only means human behavior isn’t completely random, hardly a groundbreaking discovery.

At the other end we have no issues making an arbitrary decision where there’s no way to predict what the better choice is. So what exactly does free will bring to the table that we’re missing without it? Some sort of mystical soul, well what if that’s also deterministic? Unpredictability is useful in game theory, but computers can get that from a hardware RNG based on quantum processes like radioactive decay, so it doesn’t mean much.

Finally, subjectively the answer isn’t clear so what difference does it make?

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#532

Post by stonogo » Thu, Jun 19, 2025, 9:52 PM UTC

FeepingCreature wrote: post #336

mock-possum wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

…but that just sounds like scientific racism. Rather than judging an individual on their actual intelligence, these kinds of statistical trends allow you to justify judging an individual based on their race, because you feel you can credibly claim that race is an acceptable proxy for their genome, is an acceptable proxy for their intelligence. Or for their trustworthiness, or creativity, or sexuality, or dutifulness,…

Well, the rational thing is obviously to be scared of what ideas sound like. > Rather than judging an individual on their actual intelligence Actual intelligence is hard to know! However, lots of factors allow you to make a rapid initial estimate of their actual intelligence, which you can then refine as required. (When the factors include apparent genetic heritage, this is called "racism" and society doesn't like it…

The assertion that "actual intelligence is hard to know" followed almost immediately by "apparent genetic heritage" is what's wrong with your opinion. And no, it doesn't work -- at least it doesn't work for identifying intelligence. It just works for selecting people who appeal to your bias.

IQ tests are not actual measurements of anything; this is both because nobody has a rigorous working definition of intelligence and because nobody's figured out a universal method of measuring achievement of what insufficient definitions we have. Their proponents are more interested in pigeonholing people than actually measuring anything anyway.

And as a hiring manager, I'd hire an idiot who is good at the job over a genius who isn't.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#533

Post by wizzwizz4 » Thu, Jun 19, 2025, 9:52 PM UTC

FeepingCreature wrote: post #336

mock-possum wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

…but that just sounds like scientific racism. Rather than judging an individual on their actual intelligence, these kinds of statistical trends allow you to justify judging an individual based on their race, because you feel you can credibly claim that race is an acceptable proxy for their genome, is an acceptable proxy for their intelligence. Or for their trustworthiness, or creativity, or sexuality, or dutifulness,…

Well, the rational thing is obviously to be scared of what ideas sound like. > Rather than judging an individual on their actual intelligence Actual intelligence is hard to know! However, lots of factors allow you to make a rapid initial estimate of their actual intelligence, which you can then refine as required. (When the factors include apparent genetic heritage, this is called "racism" and society doesn't like it…

Your treatment of IQ is ridiculous. Give me access to a child for seven months, and I can increase their IQ score by 20 (and probably make myself an enemy in the process: IQ test drills are one of the dullest activities, since you can't even switch your brain off while doing them).

Intelligence is not a single axis thing. IQ test results are significantly influenced by socioeconomic factors. "Actual intelligence is hard to know" because it doesn't exist.

I have never yet known scientific racism to produce true results. I have known a lot of people to say the sorts of things you're saying: evidence-free claims that racism is fine so long as you're doing the Good Racism that Actually Works™, I Promise, This Time It's Not Prejudice Because It's Justified®.

No candidate genetic correlate of the g factor has ever replicated. That should be a massive flashing warning sign that – rather than having identified an elusive fact about reality that just so happens to not appear in any rigorous study – maybe you're falling afoul of the same in-group/out-group bias as nearly every group of humans since records begin.

Since I have no reason to believe your heuristic is accurate, we can stop there. However, to further underline that you're not thinking rationally: even if blue people were (on average) 2× as capable at spacial rotation-based office jobs than green people, it still wouldn't be a good idea to start with the skin colour prior and update from there, because that would lead to the creation of caste systems, which hinder social mobility. Even if scientific racism worked (which it hasn't to date!), the rational approach would still be to judge people on their own merits.

If you find it hard to assess the competence of your subordinates, to the point where you're resorting to population-level stereotypes to make hiring decisions, you're an incompetent manager and should find another job.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#534

Post by lukev » Thu, Jun 19, 2025, 9:54 PM UTC

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #311

Certhas wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a valid point. But to some degree both can be true. I often felt when reading some of these type of texts: Wait a second, there is a wealth of thinking on these topics out there; You are not at all situating all your elaborate thinking in a broader context. And there absolutely is willingness to be challenged, and (maybe less so) a willingness to be wrong. But there also is an arrogance that "we are t…

That's a fair point. Speaking only for myself, I think I fail to understand why it's important to situate philosophical discussions in the context of all the previous philosophers who have expressed related ideas, rather than simply discussing the ideas in isolation. I remember as a child coming to the same "if reality is a deception, at least I must exist to be deceived" conclusion that Descartes did, well before I…

Did you discover it from first principles by yourself because it's a natural conclusion anyone would reach if they ponder the subject?

Or because western culture reflects this theme continuously through all the culture and media you've immersed in since you were a child?

Also the idea is definitely not new to Descartes, you can find echoes of it going back to Plato, so your idea isn't wrong per se. But I think it underrates the effect to which our philosophical preconceptions are culturally constructed.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#535

Post by jay_kyburz » Thu, Jun 19, 2025, 9:55 PM UTC

sixo wrote: post #139

greener_grass wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 edu…

I have kids in high school. We sometimes talk about the difference between the black and white of math or science, and the wishy washy grey of the humanities.

You can be right or wrong in math. You have can an opinion in English.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#536

Post by mitthrowaway2 » Thu, Jun 19, 2025, 9:59 PM UTC

Aurornis wrote: post #515

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I do think that these hedging statements make them immune from the specific criticism that I quoted. If you want to say their humility is not genuine, fine. I'm not sure I agree with it, but you are entitled to that view. But to simultaneously be attacking the same community for not ever showing a sense of maybe being wrong or uncertain, and also for expressing it so often it's become an in-group signal , is jus…

> es, I do think that these hedging statements make them immune from the specific criticism that I quoted. That's my point: Their rhetorical style is interpreted by the in-group as a sort of weird infallibility. Like they've covered both sides and therefore the work is technically correct in all cases. Once they go through the hedging dance, they can put forth the opinion-based point they're trying to make in a very…

> That's a strawman argument. At no point did I "attack the community for not ever showing a sense of maybe being wrong or uncertain".

Ok, let's scroll up the thread. When I refer to "the specific criticism that I quoted", and when you say "implying that because they say and do these things, they must be immune from the criticism delivered above": what do you think was the "criticism delivered above"? Because I thought we were talking about contrarian1234's claim to exactly this "strawman", and you so far have not appeared to not agree with me that this criticism was invalid.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#537

Post by lasersail » Thu, Jun 19, 2025, 10:03 PM UTC

I was at Lighthaven that week. The weekend-long LessOnline event Scott references opened what LightHaven termed "Festival Season", with a summer camp organised for the following 5 week days, and a prediction market & forecasting conference called Manifest the following weekend.

I didn't attend LessOnline since I'm not active on LessWrong nor identify as a rationalist - but I did attended a GPU programming course in the "summer camp" portion of the week, and the Manifest conference (my primary interest).

My experience generally aligns with Scott's view, the community is friendly and welcoming, but I had one strange encounter. There was some time allocated to meet with other attendees at Manifest who resided in the same part of the world (not the bay area). I ended up surrounded by a group of 5-6 folks who appeared to be friends already, had been a part of the Rationalist movement for a few years, and had attended LessOnline the previous weekend. They spent most of the hour critiquing and comparing their "quality of conversations" at LessOnline with the less Rationalist-y, more prediction market & trading focused Manifest event. Completely unaware or unwelcoming of my presence as an outsider, they essentially came to the conclusion that a lot of the Manifest crowd were dummies and were - on average - "more wrong" than themselves. It was all very strange, cult-y, pseudo-intellectual, and lacking in self-awareness.

All that said, the experience at Summer Camp and Manifest was a net positive, but there is some credence to sneers aimed at the Rationalist community.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#538

Post by foldr » Thu, Jun 19, 2025, 10:04 PM UTC

johnfn wrote: post #461

lukas099 wrote: post #381

This is vibe-based, but I think the Rationalists get more vitriol than they deserve. Upon reflecting, my hypothesis for this is threefold: 1. They are a community —they have an in-group, and if you are not one of them you are by-definition in the out-group. People tend not to like being in other peoples' out-groups. 2. They have unusual opinions and are open about them. People tend not to like people who express opin…

HN judges rationality quite severely. I mean, look at this thread about Mr. Beast[1], who it's safe to say is a controversial figure, and notice how all the top comments are all pretty charitable. It's pretty funny to take the conversation there and then compare the comments to this article. Scott Aaronson - in theory someone HN should be a huge fan of, from all reports a super nice and extremely intelligent guy who…

Most people are trying to be rational (to be sure, with varying degrees of success), and people who aren't even trying aren't really worth having abstract intellectual discussions with. I'm reminded of CS Lewis's quip in a different context that "you might just as well expect to be congratulated because, whenever you do a sum, you try to get it quite right."

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#539

Post by munksbeer » Thu, Jun 19, 2025, 10:09 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #499

dasil003 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intelligence and rational thought is useful, but like any strategy it has its tradeoffs and limitations. No amount of intelligence can overcome the chaos of long time horizons, especially when we're talking about human civilization. IMHO it's reasonable to pick a long-term problem/risk and focus on solving it. But it's pure hubris to think rationality will give you anything approaching high confidence of what the big…

I think one can levy a much more specific critique of rationalism: rationalism is in some sense self-defeating. If you are rational you will necessarily conclude that the fundamental dynamic that drives the (interesting parts of) the universe is Darwinian evolution, which is not rational. It blindly selects for reproductive fitness at the expense of all else. If you are a gene, you can probably produce more offspring…

I hesitate to nitpick, but Darwinism (as far as I know) is not really the term to use because Darwin's theory was limited to life on earth. Only later was the concept generalised into "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest".

I'm not sure I entirely understand what you're arguing here, but I absolutely do agree that the most powerful force in the universe is natural selection.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#540

Post by gjm11 » Thu, Jun 19, 2025, 10:11 PM UTC

alephnerd wrote: post #501

gjm11 wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This complaint seems to amount to "They believe something is very important, just like religious people do, therefore they're basically a religion". Which feels to me like rather too broad a notion of "religion".

That's a fairly reductive take of my point. In my experience with the Rationalist movement (who I have the misfortune of being 1-2 people away from), the millenarian threat of AGI remains the primary threat. Whenever I try to get an answer of HOW (as in the attack path), I keep getting a deus ex machina. Reverting to a deus ex machina in a self purported Rationalist movement is inherently irrational. And that's where…

My understanding of the Yudkowskian argument for AI x-risk is that a key step is along the lines of "an AI much smarter than us will find ways to get what it wants even if we want something else -- even though we can't predict now what those ways will be, just as chimpanzees could not have predicted how humans would outcompete them and just as you could not predict exactly how Magnus Carlsen will crush you if you play chess against him".

I take it this is what you have in mind when you say that whenever you ask for an "attack path" you keep getting a deus ex machina. But it seems to me like a pretty weak basis for calling Yudkowsky's position on this a religion.

(Not all people who consider themselves rationalists agree with Yudkowsky about how big a risk prospective superintelligent AI is. Are you taking "the Rationalist movement" to mean only the ones who agree with Yudkowsky about that?)

> Unsurprisingly, Eliezer Yudkowsky is an ex-talmid

So far as I can tell this is completely untrue unless it just means "Yudkowsky is from a Jewish family". (I hope you would not endorse taking "X is from a Jewish family" as good evidence that X is irrationally prone to religious thinking.)