I’ve known and respected people on both sides of this, and have been frustrated by some of the back-and-forth on this.
On the side of the authors, I find these pieces interesting but very angsty. There’s clearly some bad blood here. It reminds me a lot of meat eaters who seem to attack vegans out of irritation more than deliberate logic. [1]
On the other, I’ve seen some attacks of this group on LessWrong that seemed over-the-top to me.
Sometimes grudges motivate authors to be incredibly productive, so maybe some of this can be useful.
It seems like others find these discussions useful form the votes, but as of now, I find it difficult to take much from them.
[1] I think there are many reasonable meat eaters out there, but there are also many who are angry/irrational about it.
I think part of where the angsty energy comes from is that Yudkowsky and Soares are incredibly brazen and insulting when they express their views on AI. For instance, Yudkowsky recently said that people with AGI timelines longer than 30 years are no “smarter than a potted plant”. Yudkowsky has publicly said, on at least two occasions, that he believes he’s the smartest person in the world — at least on AI safety and maybe just in general — and there’s no second place that’s particularly close. Yudkowsky routinely expresses withering contempt, even for people who are generally “on his side” and trying to be helpful. It’s really hard to engage with this style of “debate” (as it were) and not feel incredibly pissed off.
When I was running an EA university group, if anyone had behaved like Yudkowsky routinely behaves, they would have been banned from the group, and I’m sure the members of my group would have unanimously agreed the behaviour is unacceptable. The same applies to any other in-person group, community, or social circle I’ve been apart of. It would scarcely be more acceptable than a man in an EA group repeatedly telling the women he just met there how hot they are. People generally don’t tolerate this kind of thing. I think many people would prefer not to reward this behaviour with attention, but given that Yudkowsky (and Soares) have already successfully gotten a lot of attention, it’s necessary to write replies like this essay (the one above, by the Mechanize co-founders).
Privately, some people in the LessWrong community, where Yudkowsky is deeply revered, have said they find Yudkowsky’s style of engagement unpleasant and regrettable (in stronger words than that). Some have said it publicly. (Soares, too, has been publicly criticized for his demeanor toward people who are “on his side” and trying to be helpful, let alone people he disagrees with, or thinks he does.)
I think it’s close to impossible not to feel angsty when engaging with Yudkowsky (and Soares), unless you happen to be one of those people who revere him and treat him as a role model (or, I don’t know, you’re a Zen Buddhist master). I agree that it’s regrettable for the debates to become as heated as they often get. I agree it would be more interesting to have intellectual discussions based in civility, mutual respect, curiosity about the other person’s opinion, intellectual generosity, and so on. But if someone isn’t willing to play ball, I think you’ve gotta either just ignore them, bite your tongue and be artificially polite (in which case some amount of angst will probably still be revealed), or write angry refutations.
I’ve known and respected people on both sides of this, and have been frustrated by some of the back-and-forth on this.
On the side of the authors, I find these pieces interesting but very angsty. There’s clearly some bad blood here. It reminds me a lot of meat eaters who seem to attack vegans out of irritation more than deliberate logic. [1]
On the other, I’ve seen some attacks of this group on LessWrong that seemed over-the-top to me.
Sometimes grudges motivate authors to be incredibly productive, so maybe some of this can be useful.
It seems like others find these discussions useful form the votes, but as of now, I find it difficult to take much from them.
[1] I think there are many reasonable meat eaters out there, but there are also many who are angry/irrational about it.
I think part of where the angsty energy comes from is that Yudkowsky and Soares are incredibly brazen and insulting when they express their views on AI. For instance, Yudkowsky recently said that people with AGI timelines longer than 30 years are no “smarter than a potted plant”. Yudkowsky has publicly said, on at least two occasions, that he believes he’s the smartest person in the world — at least on AI safety and maybe just in general — and there’s no second place that’s particularly close. Yudkowsky routinely expresses withering contempt, even for people who are generally “on his side” and trying to be helpful. It’s really hard to engage with this style of “debate” (as it were) and not feel incredibly pissed off.
When I was running an EA university group, if anyone had behaved like Yudkowsky routinely behaves, they would have been banned from the group, and I’m sure the members of my group would have unanimously agreed the behaviour is unacceptable. The same applies to any other in-person group, community, or social circle I’ve been apart of. It would scarcely be more acceptable than a man in an EA group repeatedly telling the women he just met there how hot they are. People generally don’t tolerate this kind of thing. I think many people would prefer not to reward this behaviour with attention, but given that Yudkowsky (and Soares) have already successfully gotten a lot of attention, it’s necessary to write replies like this essay (the one above, by the Mechanize co-founders).
Privately, some people in the LessWrong community, where Yudkowsky is deeply revered, have said they find Yudkowsky’s style of engagement unpleasant and regrettable (in stronger words than that). Some have said it publicly. (Soares, too, has been publicly criticized for his demeanor toward people who are “on his side” and trying to be helpful, let alone people he disagrees with, or thinks he does.)
I think it’s close to impossible not to feel angsty when engaging with Yudkowsky (and Soares), unless you happen to be one of those people who revere him and treat him as a role model (or, I don’t know, you’re a Zen Buddhist master). I agree that it’s regrettable for the debates to become as heated as they often get. I agree it would be more interesting to have intellectual discussions based in civility, mutual respect, curiosity about the other person’s opinion, intellectual generosity, and so on. But if someone isn’t willing to play ball, I think you’ve gotta either just ignore them, bite your tongue and be artificially polite (in which case some amount of angst will probably still be revealed), or write angry refutations.