SneerClub

989 readers

1 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

this year's "hmm, actually this is bad" post: Eliezer Yudkowsky Is Frequently, Confidently, Egregiously Wrong (www.lesswrong.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In my final year of high school debate

Most self aware rationalist.

I’m not an expert about X, but it seems like most of the experts about X think X or are unsure about it. The fact that Eliezer, who often veers sharply off-the-rails, thinks X gives me virtually no evidence about X. Eliezer, while being quite smart, is not rational enough to be worthy of significant deference on any subject, especially those subjects outside his area of expertise. Still though, he has some interesting things to say about AI and consequentialism that are sort of convincing. So it’s not like he’s wrong about everything or is a total crank. But he’s wrong enough, in sufficiently egregious ways, that I don’t really care what he thinks.

So close to being deprogrammed. So close. It's like when a kid finds out about the Easter Bunny but somehow still clings to Santa.

He links to this (warning, so long it has a whole 'why write this' section) article on Yudkowsky being wrong which amuses me.

Making basic errors that show you don’t have the faintest grasp on what people are arguing about, and then acting like the people who take the time to get Ph.Ds and don’t end up agreeing with your half-baked arguments are just too stupid to be worth listening to is outrageous.

This, but for AI lol.

If anyone would like to have a debate about this on YouTube...

LW equivalent of fight me irl bro

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

In the days of my youth, about two years ago, I was a big fan of Eliezer Yudkowsky.

In fact, Eliezer’s memorable phrasing that the many worlds interpretation “wins outright given the current state of evidence,” was responsible for the title of my 44-part series arguing for utilitarianism titled “Utilitarianism Wins Outright.”

this poster accidentally paints such an accurate picture of the average young rationalist you can almost taste it (and it isn’t delicious)

also, I’m no physicist, but the quote about MWI winning outright has always struck me as an extremely poor approach to science, especially given (to my current knowledge at least, physicists please correct me) the lack of solid proof pointing to MWI being correct. like a lot of things, yud seems to like MWI because a multiverse is a fun base for ~~a pseudoscientific cult~~ his Harry Potter fanfiction. the other quotes in this post don’t do any better, even when the poster is trying to use them to complement yud.

that this poster took a shitty quote about yud doing science poorly and turned it into a 44-part series named Utilitarianism Wins Outright is just chef’s kiss

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Failed physicist here: Collapse interpretation always seemed a bit unscientific in general to me. I am quite possibly wrong because it's not my field but I haven't seen any currently testable hypotheses come out of it.

There's not zero merit in this sort of galaxy brain thinking and it's satisfying to have some kind of model rather than just a series of disjointed facts but the polarization of amateurs on this always seemed strange to me. Like sportsball fans thinking the other teams want to kill each rather than the event being mutual play.

I've never met someone who actually does physics that had a very strong opinion one way or the other. A lot of "MWI seems elegant but we can't know yet" or "Collapse is a bit weird and unsatisfying isn't it?". Maybe when you get to the giganerds and their chalkboards the shivs come out but I've seen no evidence.

Besides, we should all be focusing on how time is mathematically hideous and thus clearly not fundamental.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Current physicist here: yeah, most physicists are in the "shut up and calculate" camp, and view the interpretations as fun lunchroom conversation.

I also think that collapse is unsatisfying, and I think yud did an adequate job in relaying the reasons why a lot of physicists are unhappy with it. The problem is that "collapse is unsatisfying" is not sufficient evidence to declare that MWI is true and that MWI nonbelievers are fools. The obvious point being that there a shitload of other interpretations which neither feature many-worlds or "real" collapse. The other point is that MWI is an incomplete theory, as there are no explanation for the Born probabilities. Also, we know we don't have the full picture of quantum physics anyway (as it's incompatible with general relativity), so it's possible that if we figure out a unified theory the problems with interpretations will go away.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I think its "science enthusiast" popularity is mostly because it can be misunderstood to imply that a bunch of SciFi pop culture is more plausible than it is. Couple that with the nuances of various interpretations being lost on anyone who hasn't actually done the maths and you have a recipe for Batman vs Superman type disagreements.

I threw electrons at colour centres on nanodiamonds to try make them more nano-er so while quantum shit was involved I never felt particularly compelled to have a high degree of certainty in the (is epistemology the right word?) behind the maths that obviously worked.