While I have my own doubts about Eliezer's approach and likelihood of
success and about the extent of his biases and limitations, I don't
consider it fruitful to continue to bash Eliezer on various lists
once you feel seriously slighted by him or convinced that he is
hopelessly mired or whatever. Pointing people to the entire long
SL4 back and forth, much of which is more tedious sniping than real
substance is not helpful. If you have a more compact case to make
please do so. But most of us do not have the time to rehash the past
dispute in detail or the interest.
- samantha
On May 29, 2007, at 8:04 AM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
Aleksei Riikonen wrote:
On 5/28/07, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That said, your statement does probably "summarize Yudkowsky's
writings"
quite well. But why are you even trying to summarize the
writings of a
raving narcissist who does not have any qualifications in the AI
field?
Someone who explodes into titanic outbursts of uncontrollable,
embarrassing rage when someone with real knowledge of this area
dares to
disagree with him?
If I were you, what I'd be embarrassed of would be the flaming
personal attacks you make.
Be precise here, please, Aleksei: you say that I make flaming
personal attacks.... plural. Your implication is that I have made
unprovoked attacks on people, many times.
I have made "attacks" on a few people, but if you look at any
examples you can find, you will notice that I have *only* responsed
when severely provoked. If you believe that this is not true, then
please provide evidence, and if you cannot provide evidence, I
would dearly like it if you would withdraw the accusation above.
You can contact me privately to track down the evidence if you
like: I am prepared to put the time into looking at each case with
you.
Responding to provocation is *not* the same as making personal
attacks.
Of the people who have a history of disagreeing with Yudkowsky, can
you find anyone with some respectability who would find your
descriptions "raving narcissist" and "explodes into titanic outbursts
of uncontrollable, embarrassing rage when someone with real knowledge
of this area dares to disagree with him" to be appropriate / in touch
with reality? You can start by asking Ben Goertzel.
Why would I start by asking Ben Goertzel? Ben is a diplomatic,
politically astute guy who now participates in the same
organization as Eliezer Yudkowsky: even if he did agree with my
statements in private, he would never express such an opinion in
public.
I know of people from outside these lists who have taken a look at
some of Eliezer's writings. These people would go much further
than I would: they think he is an insane, ill-informed
megalomaniac who is able to distract people from his faults with
his mathematical prowess.
I also know of people on these lists who have private expressed the
view that his behavior during the incident on SL4 last year was a
"titanic outburst of uncontrollable, embarrassing rage". (Aleksei,
are you actually aware of that incident? If not, you may have some
background work to do).
I also know people on these lists and elsewhere who know enough
cognitive science to pass judgement on the technical aspects of his
comments during the aforesaid incident on SL4: these people are of
the opinion that his understanding of the issues actually under
discussion on that occasion was risible.
But, sorry, I cannot produce these people as witnesses. Why do you
suppose that any of these people would want to become involved in
public statements about Yudkowsky? They would rightly consider it
both foolish and a stupid waste of time to come out in public and
make their opinion known. I would be embarrassed to ask them to
put themselves in the line of fire by openly speaking their minds.
I think that my comments were not only appropriate and in touch
with reality, but in fact quite understated.
The position of most people who actually know about the topics that
Yudkowsky is talking about, and about what he has said on those
topics, is that he'll be hanged by his own petard. They believe
that there is no need to take him down because in the course of
time he will get exposure in the wider world, and when that happens
he will be scorned as a narcissist fool who is trying to build a
personality cult around himself. His writings will be put on
display and people will judge for themselves. If you don't believe
this, why don't you contact someone from Discover magazine, or
Wired, or Seed, and ask them if they would like to do a piece on
Yudkowsky? Make sure you point them to his wilder writings, and
note carefully their reaction (if they bother to talk to you ever
again) when they see those writings.
My concern is that this will reflect badly on the entire community.
Outsiders don't give a damn about that, but I do.
My position with respect to Yudkowsky is that he not has only made
such an extravagant and slanderous attack on me in the past that I
have no reservations about speaking my mind about him, but that he
is a loose cannon who will damage this community.
Richard Loosemore.
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&user_secret=7d7fb4d8
