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

Why are there so many rationalist cults?

asteriskmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

701–710 of 947 posts

Re: Why are there so many rationalist cults?

#701

Post by godelski »

tintor wrote: post #678
godelski wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have this oversimplified. Stringing together inferences can take us in either direction. It really depends on how things are being done and this isn't always so obvious or simple. But just to show both directions I'll give two simple examples (real world holds many more complexities) It is all about what is being modeled and how the inferences string together. If these are being multiplied, then yes, this…

Assuming your vampire tests are independent.

Correct. And there's a lot of other assumptions. I did make a specific note that it was a simplified and illustrative example. And yes, in the real world I'd warn about being careful when making i.i.d. assumptions, since these assumptions are made far more than people realize.

Re: Why are there so many rationalist cults?

#702

Post by godelski »

joe_the_user wrote: post #669
godelski wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't even know what you're arguing. > you implying that some people are good building good axiom systems How do you go from "most people aren't very good" to "this implies some people are really good"? First, that is just a really weird interpretation of how people speak (btw, "you're" not "you" ;) because this is nicer and going to be received better than "making axioms is hard and people are shit at it." Second,…

I think I misunderstood that you talking of axiomatization of mathematical or related systems. The original discussion are about the formulation of "axioms" about the real world ("the bus always X minutes late" or more elaborate stuff). I suppose I should have considered with your username, you would have consider the statement in terms of the formulation of mathematical axioms. But still, I misunderstood you and you…

  > you talking of axiomatization of mathematical or related systems.
Why do you think these are so different? Math is just a language in which we are able to formalize abstraction. Sure, it is pedantic as fuck, but that doesn't make it "not real world". If you want to talk about the bus always being late you just do this distributionally. Probabilities are our formalization around uncertainty.

We're talking about "rationalist" cults, axioms, logic, and "from first principles", I don't think using a formal language around this stuff is that much of a leap, if any. (Also, not expecting you to notice my username lol. But I did mention it because after the fact it would make more sense and serve as a hint to where I'm approaching this from).

Re: Why are there so many rationalist cults?

#703

Post by low_tech_love »

The thing with identifying yourself with an “ism” (e.g. rationalism, feminism, socialism) is that, even though you might not want that, you’re inherently positioning yourself in a reductionist and inaccurate corner of the world. Or in other words you’re shielding yourself in a comfortable, but wrong, bubble.

To call yourself an -ist means that you consider that you give more importance to that concept than other people—-you’re more rational than most, or care more about women than most, or care more about social issues than most. That is wrong both because there are many irrational rationalists and also because there are many rational people who don’t associate with the group (same with the other isms). The thing is that the very fact of creating the label and associating yourself with it will ruin the very thing that you strive for. You will attract a bunch of weirdos who want to be associated with the label without having to do the job that it requires, and you will become estranged from those who prefer to walk the walk instead of talk the talk. In both ways, you failed.

The fact is that every ism is a specific set of thoughts and ideas that is not generic, and not broad enough to carry the weight of its name. Being a feminist does not mean you care about women; it means you are tied to a specific set of ideologies and behaviours that may or may not advance the quality of life of women in the modern world, and are definitely not the only way to achieve that goal (hence the inaccuracy of the label).

Re: Why are there so many rationalist cults?

#704

Post by imtringued »

xg15 wrote: post #316
twic wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some point in the future, there won't be more people who will live in the future than live in the present, at which point you are allowed to improve conditions today. Of course, by that point the human race is nearly finished, but hey. That said, if they really thought hard about this problem, they would have come to a different conclusion: https://theconversation.com/solve-suffering-by-blowing-up-th...

Some time after we've colonized half the observable universe. Got it.

Actually, you could make the case that the population won't grow over the next thousand years maybe even then thousand years, but that's the short term and therefore unimportant.

(I'm not a longtermist)

Re: Why are there so many rationalist cults?

#705

Post by low_tech_love »

meowface wrote: post #505
skrebbel wrote: post #246

This article is beautifully written, and it's full of proper original research. I'm sad that most comments so far are knee-jerk "lol rationalists" type responses. I haven't seen any comment yet that isn't already addressed in much more colour and nuance in the article itself.

Asterisk is basically "rationalist magazine" and the author is a well-known rationalist blogger, so it's not a surprise that this is basically the only fair look into this phenomenon - compared to the typical outside view that rationalism itself is a cult and Eliezer Yudkowsky is a cult leader, both of which I consider absurd notions.

The view from the inside, written by a person who is waist deep into the movement, is the only fair look into the phenomenon?

Re: Why are there so many rationalist cults?

#706

Post by pavlov »

stickfigure wrote: post #674
pavlov wrote: post #398

A very interesting read. My idea of these self-proclaimed rationalists was fifteen years out of date. I thought they’re people who write wordy fan fiction, but turns out they’ve reached the point of having subgroups that kill people and exorcise demons. This must be how people who had read one Hubbard pulp novel in the 1950s felt decades later when they find out he’s running a full-blown religion now. The article see…

You're falling into some sort of fallacy; maybe a better rationalist than I could name it. The "they" you are describing is a large body of disparate people spread around the world. We're reading an article that focuses on a few dysfunctional subgroups. They are interesting because they are so dysfunctional and rare. Or put it this way: Name one -ism that _doesn't_ have sub/splinter groups that kill people. Even Paci…

The article specifically defines the rationalists it’s talking about:

“The rationalist community was drawn together by AI researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky’s blog post series The Sequences, a set of essays about how to think more rationally.”

Is this really a large body of disparate people spread around the world? I suspect not.

Re: Why are there so many rationalist cults?

#707

Post by xg15 »

imtringued wrote: post #704
xg15 wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some time after we've colonized half the observable universe. Got it.

Actually, you could make the case that the population won't grow over the next thousand years maybe even then thousand years, but that's the short term and therefore unimportant. (I'm not a longtermist)

Not on earth, but my understanding was that space colonization was a big part of their plan.

Re: Why are there so many rationalist cults?

#708

Post by TimByte »

pavlov wrote: post #398

A very interesting read. My idea of these self-proclaimed rationalists was fifteen years out of date. I thought they’re people who write wordy fan fiction, but turns out they’ve reached the point of having subgroups that kill people and exorcise demons. This must be how people who had read one Hubbard pulp novel in the 1950s felt decades later when they find out he’s running a full-blown religion now. The article see…

I think the piece bends over backwards to keep the charitable frame because it's written by someone inside the community, but you're right that the touted "wins" feel a bit thin compared to the sheer scale of dysfunction described.

Re: Why are there so many rationalist cults?

#710

Post by Dylan16807 »

godelski wrote: post #699
Dylan16807 wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well they were talking about a chain , A->B, B->C, C->D. You're talking about multiple pieces of evidence for the same statement. Your tests don't depend on any of the previous tests also being right.

Be careful with your description there, are you sure it doesn't apply to the Bayesian example (which was... illustrative...? And not supposed to be every possible example?)? We calculated f(f(f(x))), so I wouldn't say that this "doesn't depend on the previous 'test'". Take your chain, we can represent it with h(g(f(x))) (or (f∘g∘h)(x)). That clearly fits your case for when f=g=h. Don't lose sight of the abstractions.

So in your example you can apply just one test result at a time, in any order. And the more pieces of evidence you apply, the stronger your argument gets.

f = "The test(s) say the patient is a vampire, with a .01 false positive rate."

f∘f∘f = "The test(s) say the patient is a vampire, with a .000001 false positive rate."

In the chain example f or g or h on its own is useless. Only f∘g∘h is relevant. And f∘g∘h is a lot weaker than f or g or h appears on its own.

This is what a logic chain looks like, adapted for vampirism to make it easier to compare:

f: "The test says situation 1 is true, with a 10% false positive rate."

g: "If situation 1 then situation 2 is true, with a 10% false positive rate."

h: "If situation 2 then the patient is a vampire, with a 10% false positive rate."

f∘g∘h = "The test says the patient is a vampire, with a 27% false positive rate."

So there are two key differences. One is the "if"s that make the false positives build up. The other is that only h tells you anything about vampires. f and g are mere setup, so they can only weaken h. At best f and g would have 100% reliability and h would be its original strength, 10% false positive. The false positive rate of h will never be decreased by adding more chain links, only increased. If you want a smaller false positive rate you need a separate piece of evidence. Like how your example has three similar but separate pieces of evidence.

Post reply on HN