I don’t think you’ve summarised the LessWrong comments well. Currently, they don’t really engage with the substantive content of the post and/or aren’t convincing to me. They spend a lot of time criticising the tone of the post. The comments here by Dr. David Mathers are a far better critique than anything on LessWrong.
I do agree that the post title goes too far compared to what is actually argued.
Also, the writing here seems much more like it is deliberately engineered to get you to believe something (that Eliezer is bad) than anything Eliezer has ever actually written. If you initially found such arguments convincing, consider examining whether you have been “duped” by the author.
This paragraph seems in bad faith without substantiating, currently it’s just vague rhetoric. What do you mean by “deliberately engineered to get you to believe something”? That sounds to me like a way of framing “making an argument” to sound malicious.
I personally commented with an object-level objection; plenty of others have done the same.
I mostly take issue with the factual claims in the post, which I think is riddled with errors and misunderstandings (many of which have been pointed out), but the language is also unnecessarily emotionally charged and inflammatory in many places. A quick sampling:
But as I grew older and learned more, I realized it was all bullshit.
it becomes clear that his view is a house of cards, built entirely on falsehoods and misrepresentations.
And I spend much more time listening to Yukowsky’s followers spout nonsense than most other people.
(phrased in a maximally Eliezer like way): … (condescending chuckle)
I am frankly pretty surprised to see this so highly-upvoted on the EAF; the tone is rude and condescending, more so than anything I can recall Eliezer writing, and much more so than the usual highly-upvoted posts here.
The OP seems more interested in arguing about whatever “mainstream academics” believe than responding to (or even understanding) object-level objections. But even on that topic, they make a bunch of misstatements and overclaims. From a comment:
But the views I defend here are utterly mainstream. Virtually no people in academia think either FDT, Eliezer’s anti-zombie argument, or animal nonconsciousness are correct.
(Plenty of people who disagree with the author and agree or partially agree with Eliezer about the object-level topics are in academia. Some of them even post on LessWrong and the EAF!)
I don’t think you’ve summarised the LessWrong comments well. Currently, they don’t really engage with the substantive content of the post and/or aren’t convincing to me. They spend a lot of time criticising the tone of the post. The comments here by Dr. David Mathers are a far better critique than anything on LessWrong.
I do agree that the post title goes too far compared to what is actually argued.
This paragraph seems in bad faith without substantiating, currently it’s just vague rhetoric. What do you mean by “deliberately engineered to get you to believe something”? That sounds to me like a way of framing “making an argument” to sound malicious.
I personally commented with an object-level objection; plenty of others have done the same.
I mostly take issue with the factual claims in the post, which I think is riddled with errors and misunderstandings (many of which have been pointed out), but the language is also unnecessarily emotionally charged and inflammatory in many places. A quick sampling:
I am frankly pretty surprised to see this so highly-upvoted on the EAF; the tone is rude and condescending, more so than anything I can recall Eliezer writing, and much more so than the usual highly-upvoted posts here.
The OP seems more interested in arguing about whatever “mainstream academics” believe than responding to (or even understanding) object-level objections. But even on that topic, they make a bunch of misstatements and overclaims. From a comment:
(Plenty of people who disagree with the author and agree or partially agree with Eliezer about the object-level topics are in academia. Some of them even post on LessWrong and the EAF!)