Your technical analysis of the word "stupid" and others is impressive but that doesn't negate the impression that you talk down to not only the ideas of others but to them as well. The actual word "stupid" in this context is not the important thing as you have a very sophisticated way of writing, even for this list.
I am simply saying that you very often write quite aggressively about others and their ideas and that is simply NOT helpful. You have made many very insightful and good posts to this list and I read almost every one of them BUT the tone of your emails often distracts from your message. Please don't rebut this email as I am only expressing my opinion and I won't start a technical word fight with you on this point. My point is that if an email wasn't meant to be helpful to the thread or person you are replying to, then don't reply. I see no point in people trying to score points or be excessively negative. You seem to have concentrated on the "complex" issue and I am not convinced at all that a) there is a problem or b) that other issues aren't a lot more important. You can't provide "proof" that this complexity problem will stop the progress of an AGI and of course I can't "prove" it won't. I don't believe that the cog science field that you love has any great use in creating an AGI and you think it will be a central theme. All of the people on this list have many different ideas about AGI but only some say things like "you're wrong", "read more books", etc. I don't agree with you but I just don't know if you are right or wrong. There are many very smart people on this list and if posts were usually posted to be helpful, rather than for other reasons, the dialogue would be much better. David Clark PS Richard, you are not the worse person for talking down to others on this list and neither is Ed Porter :) PPS I continue to read and enjoy most of your emails. > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: August-03-08 5:13 PM > To: agi@v2.listbox.com > Subject: Some statistics on Loosemore's rudeness [WAS Re: [agi] > EVIDENCE RICHARD ...] > > David Clark wrote: > > Richard: > > > > I was one of the first people to help you get on the AGI list years > ago > > and I have appreciated many of your emails but Ben's comments below > are > > right on the money. > > > > Although I don't agree with many of the technical points made by Ed > > Porter, he is obviously very intelligent (as are you) and has much > > interesting information and enthusiasm to bring to the table > concerning > > AGI. I look forward to his emails even more than most of the other > > posters on this list. > > > > I for one, very much appreciate the effort made by Ben in writing > this > > email and I would appreciate more information on AGI and less chest > > thumping and ego in the emails. > > > > Calling other people's ideas stupid, ridiculous etc IS the same as > > calling other people the same and it hurts just as much. > > David, > > Several people have repeated the accusation that I am guilty of > namecalling and engaging in personal attacks that are just as > disgraceful as those that Ed Porter just delivered. > > You repeat the accusation yourself when you say "Calling other people's > ideas stupid, ridiculous etc IS the same as calling other people the > same." > > David, in the spirit of scientific objectivity, I just did a search for > the word "stupid" in all of the 811 messages that I have ever posted to > the AGI list. > > There were 58 matches, and I just laboriously analyzed every one of > them. > > Of the 58 total, 41 were completely neutral references to some abstract > thing that was 'stupid', or to phrases like 'stupidly simple', with no > bearing on anything that a person on the list said (for example I once > said "what if a stupid AI hacker were to..."). > > On 2 occasions I responded to Ed Porter by denying his accusations, and > the word was not used against him. > > On one occasion I quoted Ed Porter saying to me "Despite your statement > to the contrary --- despite your "FURY" --- I did get your point. Not > everybody beside Richard Loosemore is stupid." This was intented to be > a mild insult directed at me, although it is kind of confused (he > meant to say "intelligent", so I suspect that this was a Freudian > slip). > > On 12 occasions the word was used by someone else, and I just quoted > it. > The other person was not directing the word at me. > > On one occasion I used the word to refer, in the abstract, to some > people on the SL4 list who had speculated that I may have fabricated my > degree qualifications. This was NOT directed at the person I was > talking to, and it was fully justified by the estraordinary behavior of > the people involved. Here is the exact quote: "(Sorry for the plug, > but you know the kind of stupid nonsense I have had to take from some > unmentionable amateurs on these lists who attack arguments by making > libelous accusations about a person's qualifications and credentials)". > > On one occasion I deliverd an indirect insult by saying that "[The > mathematical terms] "Rings" and "Models" are appropriated terms, but > the > mathematicians involved would never be so stupid as to confuse them > with > the real things. Marcus Hutter and yourself are doing precisely that." > I did not intend the rudeness, it slipped out as an accident of the > way I was phrasing my thoughts, and when Ben pointed out that this was > rude, I immediately accepted the blame and apologized with these words: > "You got me bang to rights there guv'nor: I apologize for the "s" > word. > Please re-read, with the word "naive" substituted instead." > > -------------------------- > > So it seems that when we look at the evidence for me using this one > word > "stupid" to criticize other people's ideas, there was only one > occasion. > And even then it was just an accident of phrasing and it was implied, > not direct. And, to top it all, I immediately apologized for the > error. > > I have just done a lot of work to discover these statistics, and I > think > it would be fair to say that there is not a shred of evidence that I am > in the habit of accusing anyone of being stupid, or even that I use the > word 'stupid' to describe their ideas. > > What do you suppose would happen if we went and looked to see how many > times I call other people's ideas "ridiculous"? > > Here you are: 31 matches. Most of them neutral comments like > "ridiculously small", except for three that were pretty mild comments > and one serious argument: > > (1) "... they then produce ridiculous definitions, like Hutter's...". > > (2) "I was really trying to make the point that a statement like "The > singularity WILL end the human race" is completely ridiculous." > > (3) "That is just one example of how he pulls conclusions out of thin > air. The first time I read this paper I found the whole thing too > ridiculous to read after the first few times this happened." > > (4) One use of 'ridiculous' to respond to a damning insult and a slew > of > false criticisms from Josh Hall - he had said "I find your argument > quotidian and lacking in depth...". Although I should not have been so > offended, I was. I responded to this insult by saying "You said things > about complex systems that were, quite frankly, ridiculous: Turing- > machine equivalence, for example, has nothing to do with this.". > > > So in a total of 811 posts there were only five places where I used the > word 'stupid' or the word 'ridiculous'. One was an accident that I > immediately apologized for. Two uses of 'ridiculous' were extremely > mild, not directed at the person I was talking to, and both of them > were > pretty reasonable given the topic. One other use of 'ridiculous' was > completely justificable (item 2 above). > > There was just one time when I used the word 'ridiculous' in a direct > and angry attack on another person's statements, and that was after the > other person had suddenly come out with a deliberate insult. > > Do you feel that this level of abusive behavior on my part justifies > your comment that "Calling other people's ideas stupid, ridiculous etc > IS the same as calling other people the same."? Bear in mind that in > the course of yesterday evening Ed Porter threw at me a total of 14 > personal insults, all of them of a type that I have never, ever used. > > Do you really, genuinely believe that when I say something like "That > is > just one example of how he pulls conclusions out of thin air. The first > time I read this paper I found the whole thing too ridiculous to read > after the first few times this happened", this behavior of mine is just > as disgraceful as comments directed straight at my face like "It is a > shame your intelligence is not freed from the childishness, and > neediness, and dishonesty of your ego", and "if you are at all > concerned > with honesty and truth --- rather than personal pomposity ..."? > > > > > Richard Loosemore > > P.S. If you want me to give you a copy of all the posts I have written, > so you can analyze them for other words, please contact me off list and > I will send them to you. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > f491a0 > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
