Eliezer has a huge number of controversial beliefs—about AI, physics, Newcombe’s problem, zombies, nanotech, etc. Many of these are about things I know nothing about. But there are a few things where he adopts deeply controversial views that I know something about. And almost every time—well above half the time—that I know enough to fact check him, he turns out to be completely wrong in embarrassing ways.
Based on this essay it seems like by “completely wrong in embarrassing ways” you mean that he’s not knowledgeable about or respectful of what the local experts think. It’s not like we know they are right on most of these questions.
I don’t think so. I argued in detail against each of Eliezer’s views. I think I do know that Eliezer is wrong about zombies, decision theory, and animal consciousness. I didn’t just point to what experts believe, I also explained why Eliezer is wrong.
My read on what you meant by “wrong about zombies” was that he didn’t understand what the field was claiming with the use of certain words and was dismissing a strawman.
He didn’t understand how the field was using a certain word. If a person uses words incorrectly, based on a misreading, and then interprets arguments as being obviously wrong based on their misinterpretation, they are making errors, not just failing to agree with the consensus view.
Misunderstanding someone else’s claim doesn’t strike me as an “egregious error”. I don’t feel he should have to understand the entirety of the academic view to have his own view. Although I agree he was mistaken to dismiss that view using words he had misunderstood.
If you claim to be justified in having a near zero credence in some view, and the reason for that is because you don’t know what words mean that are totally standard among people who are informed about the subject matter, and then you go on to dismiss those who are informed who disagree with you, that seems pretty eggregious.
I’m sympathetic to that. I just also get a whiff of “it’s my group’s prerogative to talk about this and he didn’t pay proper deference”. As a point of comparison, I’m sympathetic to theologians who thought the new atheists were total yokels who didn’t understand any of the subtleties of their religions and their arguments, because they often didn’t. But I also think the new atheists were more right and I don’t think it would have been a good use of time for them to understand more. I’m not trying to be insulting to academic philosophy but rather insist that the world of these topics doesn’t need to revolve around it.
Eliezer was wrong to mischaracterize other people’s views. But I don’t think he was especially wrong for not knowing what the academic landscape was on a topic before opining on it himself.
Eliezer has a huge number of controversial beliefs—about AI, physics, Newcombe’s problem, zombies, nanotech, etc. Many of these are about things I know nothing about. But there are a few things where he adopts deeply controversial views that I know something about. And almost every time—well above half the time—that I know enough to fact check him, he turns out to be completely wrong in embarrassing ways.
Based on this essay it seems like by “completely wrong in embarrassing ways” you mean that he’s not knowledgeable about or respectful of what the local experts think. It’s not like we know they are right on most of these questions.
I don’t think so. I argued in detail against each of Eliezer’s views. I think I do know that Eliezer is wrong about zombies, decision theory, and animal consciousness. I didn’t just point to what experts believe, I also explained why Eliezer is wrong.
My read on what you meant by “wrong about zombies” was that he didn’t understand what the field was claiming with the use of certain words and was dismissing a strawman.
He didn’t understand how the field was using a certain word. If a person uses words incorrectly, based on a misreading, and then interprets arguments as being obviously wrong based on their misinterpretation, they are making errors, not just failing to agree with the consensus view.
Misunderstanding someone else’s claim doesn’t strike me as an “egregious error”. I don’t feel he should have to understand the entirety of the academic view to have his own view. Although I agree he was mistaken to dismiss that view using words he had misunderstood.
If you claim to be justified in having a near zero credence in some view, and the reason for that is because you don’t know what words mean that are totally standard among people who are informed about the subject matter, and then you go on to dismiss those who are informed who disagree with you, that seems pretty eggregious.
I’m sympathetic to that. I just also get a whiff of “it’s my group’s prerogative to talk about this and he didn’t pay proper deference”. As a point of comparison, I’m sympathetic to theologians who thought the new atheists were total yokels who didn’t understand any of the subtleties of their religions and their arguments, because they often didn’t. But I also think the new atheists were more right and I don’t think it would have been a good use of time for them to understand more. I’m not trying to be insulting to academic philosophy but rather insist that the world of these topics doesn’t need to revolve around it.
Eliezer was wrong to mischaracterize other people’s views. But I don’t think he was especially wrong for not knowing what the academic landscape was on a topic before opining on it himself.