Seems disingenuous to write a post this long, and not mention the obvious notion that more complicated and poorly known domains (than chess) will place weaker minds at a greater disadvantage to more powerful ones (compared to chess). This is why a superintelligence could not beat a short Python program at logical Tic-Tac-Toe, and 21st-century Russia could easily roll over 11th-century Earth with tanks and if need be nuclear weapons (even though both of those populations are the same species). Chess occupies a middle ground between those two points on the spectrum, but I’d say lies most of the way toward Tic-Tac-Toe.
I claim the word “disingenuous” is in fact breaking Forum norms, but not egregiously. It is unnecessarily unkind. I also do not think it rises to the level of formal warning. However, I deeply regret that Ted felt like taking a step back from the Forum on the basis of this comment. I think this shows the impact of unkind comments.
I’m not a moderator, but I used to run the Forum, and I sometimes advise the moderation team.
While “disingenuous” could imply you think your interlocutor is deliberately lying about something, Eliezer seems to mean “I think you’ve left out an obvious counterargument”.
That claim feels different to me, and I don’t think it breaks Forum norms (though I understand why JP disagrees, and it’s not an obvious call):
I don’t want people to deliberately lie on the Forum. However, I don’t think we should expect them to always list even the most obvious counterarguments to their points. We have comments for a reason!
I’m more bothered by criticism that accuses an author of norm-breaking (“seems dishonest”) than criticism that merely accuses them of not putting forward maximal effort (“seems to leave out X”)
To get deeper into this: I read “seems dishonest” as an attack — it implies that the author did something seriously wrong and should be downvoted or warned by mods. I read “seems to leave out X” as an invitation to an argument.
The ambiguity of “disingenuous” means I’d prefer to see people get more specific. But while I wish Eliezer hadn’t used the word, I also think he successfully specified what he meant by it, and the overall comment didn’t feel like an attack (to me, a bystander; obviously, an author might feel differently).
*****
I don’t blame anyone who wants to take a break from Forum writing for any reason, including feeling discouraged by negative comments. Especially when it’s easy to read “seems disingenuous” as “you are lying”.
But I think the Forum will continue to have comments like Eliezer’s going forward. And I hope that, in addition to pushing for kinder critiques, we can maintain a general understanding on the Forum that a non-kind critique isn’t necessarily a personal attack.
(Ted, if you’re reading this: I think that Eliezer’s argument is reasonable, but I also think that yours was a solid post, and I’m glad we have it!)
*****
The Forum has a hard balance to strike:
I think the average comment is just a bit less argumentative / critical than would be ideal.
I think the average critical comment is less kind than would be ideal.
I want criticism to be kind, but I also want it to exist, and pushing people to be kinder might also reduce the overall quantity of criticism. I’m not sure what the best realistic outcome is.
I think it’s important that Eliezer used the words “and not mention the obvious notion that” (emphasis added).
The use of the word “obvious” suggests that Eliezer thinks that Ted is either lying by not mentioning an obvious point, or he’s so stupid that he shouldn’t be contributing to the forum.
If Eliezer had simply dropped the word “obvious”, then I would agree with Aaron’s assessment.
However as is, I agree with JP’s assessment.
(Not that I’m a moderator, nor am I suggesting that my opinion should receive some special weight, just adding another perspective.)
My opinion placed zero weight on the argument that Eliezer is a high profile user of the forum, and harsh words from him may cut deeper, therefore he (arguably) has a stronger onus to be kind.
Pulling the top definitions off a Google search, disingenous means:
not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does (Oxford Languages)
lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : calculating (Merriam-Webster)
not totally honest or sincere. It’s disingenuous when people pretend to know less about something . . . (Vocabulary)
lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere (Dictionary.com)
I don’t see a whole lot of daylight between calling an argument disingenous and calling it less-than-honest, lacking in candor, or lacking in sincerity. I also don’t see much difference between calling an argument less-than-honest and calling its proponent less-than-honest. Being deficient in honesty, candor, or sincerity requires intent, and thus an agent.
To me, there’s not a lot of ambiguity in the word’s definition. But I hear the argument that the context in which Eliezer used it created more ambiguity. In that case, he should withdraw it, substitute a word that is not defined as implicating honesty/candor/sincerity, and apologize to Ted for the poor word choice. If he declines to do any of that after the community (including two moderators supported by a number of downvoters and agreevoters) have explained that his statement was problematic, then I think we should read disingenous as the dictionaries define it. And that would warrant a warning.
Stepping back, I think it would significantly damage Forum culture to openly tolerate people calling other people’s arguments “disingenous” and the like without presenting clear evidence of the proponent’s dishonesty. It’s just too easy to deploy that kind of language as a personal attack with plausible deniability (I am not suggesting that was Eliezer’s intent here). One can hardly fault Ted for reading the word as the dictionaries do. I read it the same way.
Although there will always be difficulties with line-drawing and subjectivity, I think using consistent dictionary definitions as the starting point mitigates those concerns. And where there is enough ambiguity, allowing the person to substitute a more appropriate term and disavow the norm-breaking interpretation of their poor word choice should mitigate the risk of overwarning.
Why would this notion be obvious? Seems just as likely, if not more, that in a more complicated domain your ability to achieve your goals hits diminishing returns w.r.t intelligence more quickly than in simple environments. If that is the case the ‘disadvantage of weaker minds’ will be smaller, not larger.
(I don’t find the presented analogy very convincing, especially in the ‘complicated domain’ example of modern Russia overpowering medieval Earth, since it is only obvious if we imagine the entire economy/infrastructure/resources of Russia. Consider instead the thought experiment of say 200 people armed with 21st century knowledge but nothing else, and it seems not so obvious they’ll be easily able to ‘roll-over 11th-century Earth’).
Maybe the wording people found off=putting, but I think the point is correct. AIs haven’t really started to get creative yet, which shouldn’t be underestimated. Creativity is expanding the matrix of possibilities. In chess, that matrix remains constrained. Sure, there are physical constraints, but an ASI can run circles around us before it has to resort to reversing entropy.
Edited: Speaking in my own opinion, I think this comment breaks Forum norms by being unnecessarily rude. I’ll raise it to the moderator team and discuss it.
Seems disingenuous to write a post this long, and not mention the obvious notion that more complicated and poorly known domains (than chess) will place weaker minds at a greater disadvantage to more powerful ones (compared to chess). This is why a superintelligence could not beat a short Python program at logical Tic-Tac-Toe, and 21st-century Russia could easily roll over 11th-century Earth with tanks and if need be nuclear weapons (even though both of those populations are the same species). Chess occupies a middle ground between those two points on the spectrum, but I’d say lies most of the way toward Tic-Tac-Toe.
I claim the word “disingenuous” is in fact breaking Forum norms, but not egregiously. It is unnecessarily unkind. I also do not think it rises to the level of formal warning. However, I deeply regret that Ted felt like taking a step back from the Forum on the basis of this comment. I think this shows the impact of unkind comments.
I’m not a moderator, but I used to run the Forum, and I sometimes advise the moderation team.
While “disingenuous” could imply you think your interlocutor is deliberately lying about something, Eliezer seems to mean “I think you’ve left out an obvious counterargument”.
That claim feels different to me, and I don’t think it breaks Forum norms (though I understand why JP disagrees, and it’s not an obvious call):
I don’t want people to deliberately lie on the Forum. However, I don’t think we should expect them to always list even the most obvious counterarguments to their points. We have comments for a reason!
I’m more bothered by criticism that accuses an author of norm-breaking (“seems dishonest”) than criticism that merely accuses them of not putting forward maximal effort (“seems to leave out X”)
To get deeper into this: I read “seems dishonest” as an attack — it implies that the author did something seriously wrong and should be downvoted or warned by mods. I read “seems to leave out X” as an invitation to an argument.
The ambiguity of “disingenuous” means I’d prefer to see people get more specific. But while I wish Eliezer hadn’t used the word, I also think he successfully specified what he meant by it, and the overall comment didn’t feel like an attack (to me, a bystander; obviously, an author might feel differently).
*****
I don’t blame anyone who wants to take a break from Forum writing for any reason, including feeling discouraged by negative comments. Especially when it’s easy to read “seems disingenuous” as “you are lying”.
But I think the Forum will continue to have comments like Eliezer’s going forward. And I hope that, in addition to pushing for kinder critiques, we can maintain a general understanding on the Forum that a non-kind critique isn’t necessarily a personal attack.
(Ted, if you’re reading this: I think that Eliezer’s argument is reasonable, but I also think that yours was a solid post, and I’m glad we have it!)
*****
The Forum has a hard balance to strike:
I think the average comment is just a bit less argumentative / critical than would be ideal.
I think the average critical comment is less kind than would be ideal.
I want criticism to be kind, but I also want it to exist, and pushing people to be kinder might also reduce the overall quantity of criticism. I’m not sure what the best realistic outcome is.
I think it’s important that Eliezer used the words “and not mention the obvious notion that” (emphasis added).
The use of the word “obvious” suggests that Eliezer thinks that Ted is either lying by not mentioning an obvious point, or he’s so stupid that he shouldn’t be contributing to the forum.
If Eliezer had simply dropped the word “obvious”, then I would agree with Aaron’s assessment.
However as is, I agree with JP’s assessment.
(Not that I’m a moderator, nor am I suggesting that my opinion should receive some special weight, just adding another perspective.)
My opinion placed zero weight on the argument that Eliezer is a high profile user of the forum, and harsh words from him may cut deeper, therefore he (arguably) has a stronger onus to be kind.
Pulling the top definitions off a Google search, disingenous means:
not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does (Oxford Languages)
lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : calculating (Merriam-Webster)
not totally honest or sincere. It’s disingenuous when people pretend to know less about something . . . (Vocabulary)
lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere (Dictionary.com)
I don’t see a whole lot of daylight between calling an argument disingenous and calling it less-than-honest, lacking in candor, or lacking in sincerity. I also don’t see much difference between calling an argument less-than-honest and calling its proponent less-than-honest. Being deficient in honesty, candor, or sincerity requires intent, and thus an agent.
To me, there’s not a lot of ambiguity in the word’s definition. But I hear the argument that the context in which Eliezer used it created more ambiguity. In that case, he should withdraw it, substitute a word that is not defined as implicating honesty/candor/sincerity, and apologize to Ted for the poor word choice. If he declines to do any of that after the community (including two moderators supported by a number of downvoters and agreevoters) have explained that his statement was problematic, then I think we should read disingenous as the dictionaries define it. And that would warrant a warning.
Stepping back, I think it would significantly damage Forum culture to openly tolerate people calling other people’s arguments “disingenous” and the like without presenting clear evidence of the proponent’s dishonesty. It’s just too easy to deploy that kind of language as a personal attack with plausible deniability (I am not suggesting that was Eliezer’s intent here). One can hardly fault Ted for reading the word as the dictionaries do. I read it the same way.
Although there will always be difficulties with line-drawing and subjectivity, I think using consistent dictionary definitions as the starting point mitigates those concerns. And where there is enough ambiguity, allowing the person to substitute a more appropriate term and disavow the norm-breaking interpretation of their poor word choice should mitigate the risk of overwarning.
Sorry for seeming disingenuous. :(
(I think I will stop posting here for a while.)
I see some disagree votes on Ted’s comment. My guess at what they mean:
“Ted, please don’t be put off, Eliezer is being unnecessarily unkind. Your post was a useful contribution”.
Why would this notion be obvious? Seems just as likely, if not more, that in a more complicated domain your ability to achieve your goals hits diminishing returns w.r.t intelligence more quickly than in simple environments. If that is the case the ‘disadvantage of weaker minds’ will be smaller, not larger.
(I don’t find the presented analogy very convincing, especially in the ‘complicated domain’ example of modern Russia overpowering medieval Earth, since it is only obvious if we imagine the entire economy/infrastructure/resources of Russia. Consider instead the thought experiment of say 200 people armed with 21st century knowledge but nothing else, and it seems not so obvious they’ll be easily able to ‘roll-over 11th-century Earth’).
Maybe the wording people found off=putting, but I think the point is correct. AIs haven’t really started to get creative yet, which shouldn’t be underestimated. Creativity is expanding the matrix of possibilities. In chess, that matrix remains constrained. Sure, there are physical constraints, but an ASI can run circles around us before it has to resort to reversing entropy.
Edited:
Speaking in my own opinion, I think this comment breaks Forum norms by being unnecessarily rude. I’ll raise it to the moderator team and discuss it.