On May 29, 2007, at 11:25 AM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
Samantha Atkins wrote:
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
Samantha,
By expressing your personal opinion about the SL4 episode, you are
sowing confusion: Aleksei accused me of making (multiple,
unwarranted) personal attacks -- are you really telling me that I
should not defend myself against this accusation by making
references to things that you do not like, like the tedious SL4
episode?
Actually, I think that you are sowing confusion by referring to your
conclusion from those episodes as if they were established facts.
Especially when you do so to people who weren't present for the events
in question. You ask them effectively to either take your word for it
or to rehash a lot of material long past. Neither seems reasonable.
It my humble opinion too much focus on defending yourself only makes
you look bad. I think this is too much.
More generally, though, about whether I should have spoken up about
Yudkowsky in the first place (a different matter).
Speaking up about him is one thing. Doing so with considerable
opprobrium over experiences we mostly do not share is something else.
Yudkowsky is not "hopelessly mired". Nothing so innocuous. He is
behaving like the leader of a personality cult; he is making
statements about AI and cognitive science that are simplistic,
extremely misleading and worthy of challenge (if not downright
wrong); and has used his bully pulpit to suppress criticism of his
ideas. Yudkowsky has made slanderous accusations about a person's
qualifications and credentials (mine) and has written an extensive,
juvenile diatribe against that person (me), purely in response to a
situation in which his ideas were challenged. This is not
"hopelessly mired", this is deeply irrational behavior.
Where is this diatribe? Is it in a concise form?
People who behave like that need to be challenged. Especially when
others cite Yudkowsky's writings, as Joshua Fox did recently, after
those writings have been challenged and Yudkowsky's response to the
challenge was to mount a vicious ad hominem flame war against the
challenger. What on earth do you think a rational person should do?
Just meekly stand by and watch Yudkowsky's writings get repeated as
if they were gospel? Quietly roll over when he uses his gang to
mount ad hominem attacks, rather than address the concrete issues?
I saw both of you go back and forth slicing into each other's
character and credibility for some time. It was not one-sided. It
is perfectly fine and very responsible to write up what is wrong with
Eliezer's views and implementation plans. That can be done without a
lot of emotional noise. It is fine to say what you think of him as a
person and why if you wish. Although I think that will be a lot less
interesting to most of us. But just bashing away in heavy emotional
tones is not helpful to anyone.
Forget the nasty details of the SL4 episode, Samantha. Drop it.
Just look at the wider picture. Look at the critiques against
Yudkowsky for their content, and then try to imagine that any
rational, academic researcher in his right mind would respond to a
criticism of his ideas with a document such as this:
http://sl4.org/archive/0608/15928.html
Well, the thing is that I was around, off and on, for parts of this.
Have I seen Eliezer act in ways I consider inappropriate and damaging
at times? Sure. Is this one of them? I am not so sure as I saw the
long and increasingly poisonous interaction between you two. Was it
reasonable for Eliezer to call you a crackpot? Probably not but then
you have said as bad and worse about him.
Bear in mind that the person who made those remarks has no
qualifications beyond high school, but the person he attacked has
publications in cognitive science and a postgraduate degree in the
subject. You don't think there is a serious problem here? Are you
joking?
Pardon me but paper does not determine how qualified a person is in
the least. I know many PhD bearing folks. Some are excellent
cutting edge researchers. Some coast on their past. Some don't care
much about research or even their field. I know many people without
formal credentials who work diligently and passionately to learn
everything possible about their areas of interest and seek any way
they can find to contribute. Regardless of any flaws and foibles
Eliezer may have he is one of the brightest and most passionately
dedicated people I have ever met.
Your degree is in what exactly, Psychology? I am supposed to
automatically presume that you know more about particular subjects
than Eliezer because of just that? Now who is joking?
This is not about my dispute with Yudkowsky, it is about someone
standing up and pointing to the emperor's nakedness.
Fine. But mind the beam in your own eye.
- samantha
-----
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
