I also think that his obsession with the kinds of inverted reasoning, such as "anti-inductive markets" is serving an interest of his: by planting this meme in your head, you'll subconsciously apply it out of context, when his qualifications of reputation come up. He'll say "Oh but even if I had qualifications, you'd probably reject my claims, so I don't need qualifications". They (and his earlier co-author Robin Hanson) also like to reduce things to signaling, basically saying that education is just to show off and raise one's status by acquiring pieces of paper, but if you really want to get things done, it's more efficient to self-study and concentrate on the really important things, skipping all this mess that is education.

So if you eat these ideas at the right time, you won't find anything suspicious about him lacking any reputation, any qualifications. He's trying to sell you the idea that he's so much above the ridiculous ideas of the mainstream that he doesn't need to go among them an get tested by them, he tries to sell you that this is just signalling, the way a really rich person doesn't need to show off expensive items, or a big dog doesn't need to bark as much.

Another thing about the anti-inductive meme is that seeing the world thought these glasses makes you kind of paranoid. Because how can you know if the thing you conclude shouldn't be the exact opposite? You know, maybe the system figured out what you will think, it simulated you and now you are supposed to outsmart that system, etc. When in reality, the overwhelming majority of everyday things are straightforward and inductive and rarely go deeper than 1 or 2 levels of "simulating the other". But his focus on the superintelligent being makes you think subconsciously that this is the nature of the current world as well, and a lack of qualifications should actually be seen as a proof of skill, not as a counterevidence.

Maybe you say nobody would think that, but I did, some years ago. I got sucked into his writings and I was gullible. Since then I have learned a lot from other sources and can see much better how he rips off previous ideas, repackages them and creates a crazy ideology.

> They (and his earlier co-author Robin Hanson) also like to reduce things to signaling, basically saying that education is just to show off and raise one's status by acquiring pieces of paper, but if you really want to get things done, it's more efficient to self-study and concentrate on the really important things, skipping all this mess that is education.

You say it like it's not true. Traditional education is a mess. A lot of it is smoke and mirrors and signaling. Which is why online education is huge and growing.

> Traditional education is a mess.

True.

> but if you really want to get things done, it's more efficient to self-study and concentrate on the really important things, skipping all this mess that is education.

Also true, at least some of the time.

However, it does not follow that the uncredentialed person telling you that education doesn't matter is therefore right in the rest of what he/she is telling you.

> However, it does not follow that the uncredentialed person telling you that education doesn't matter is therefore right in the rest of what he/she is telling you.

Where did I say that it follows?

Also, AFAIK Robin Hanson is a full econ professor.

You didn't. I was noting the gap between what you said and what johann28 said.

If you really ended up thinking like that I think that is more reflective of your personality/mind than Yudkowsky's writings. Like, I don't mean this to be insulting, but normal people don't end up paranoid and anxious and worrying about what levels people are playing at and thinking that super intelligent beings are the nature of the world, after reading LW. Normal people say "Huh thats cool" and it makes for fun dinner table talks and at best comes up in real life if you are a contestant on a game show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0qjK3TWZE8

Yudkowsky isn't some devious mastermind trying to brainwash people into thinking wrong so he can. So he can what? Even if he was a devious mastermind who created a polemic work so as to get people to think wrong... what would his goal be?

I didn't end up actually paranoid, that's an exaggeration. But many people for whom this is the first encounter with these topics, do get confused and "brainwashed". Some people can't really understand the implications in the first place, so they of course won't be impacted.

I don't have enough time now, but at some point I may try to summarize the specific patterns of thought that are most problematic in their treatment of counterfactuality, acausality, simulations, free will, anti-inductivity, signaling etc.

I'm not saying he's devious. I think he probably believes what he says as far as I can tell or care. But it's irrelevant.

And about normal people: there are writings scattered around the internet about similar experiences and there are probably more in private exchanges (as the posts themselves describe). I even read about things akin to support groups. Of course I shouldn't blow this out of proportion, we aren't talking about masses of people here.

I'd be interested in reading this. You keep writing as if LW/Yudkowsky is very harmful,but you won't elaborate on what the danger is aside from "think wrong".

Like if people were donating all their money to A.I because of the Basilisk, or killing themselves while gambling because they've taken many worlds too far, or something I could see why you would be so urgent to warn people away from Yudkowsky. What is you are so concerned with?

> what they do isn't philosophy.

It's more philosophical than what most philosophers do, as long as they dismiss people out of hand.

Yudkowsky at least admits others have ideas worth engaging with.