RationalWiki's Q4 2016 Fundraiser
We are 100% user-supported!
Without you, there is no RationalWiki!
Goal: $5000 Donations so far: $2030
40.6%

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
Help and donate today!

Bronze-level articleLessWrong

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Old LW google cache was broken, uploaded a new copy to same website and updated link here)
(How to spot a LessWrongian in your sceptical discussion)
Line 36: Line 36:
 
* "Bayesian" (particularly when they seem to have picked a real doozy of a prior probability; no working will ever be shown)
 
* "Bayesian" (particularly when they seem to have picked a real doozy of a prior probability; no working will ever be shown)
 
* Preaching "rationalism" as if it's a religion substitute.<ref>''e.g.'' [http://www.fanfiction.net/u/2269863/Less_Wrong Eliezer Yudkowsky on fanfic.net]. At least he's using Harry Potter fanfic rather than a new ''Atlas Shrugged''. And, unlike Rand, he can actually write.</ref><ref>[http://yudkowsky.net/rational/virtues This essay], while entertaining and useful, can be seen as Yudkowsky trying to reinvent the sense of awe associated with religious experience in the name of rationalism. It's even available in [http://yudkowsky.net/assets/pdf/twelve_virtues.pdf tract format].</ref>
 
* Preaching "rationalism" as if it's a religion substitute.<ref>''e.g.'' [http://www.fanfiction.net/u/2269863/Less_Wrong Eliezer Yudkowsky on fanfic.net]. At least he's using Harry Potter fanfic rather than a new ''Atlas Shrugged''. And, unlike Rand, he can actually write.</ref><ref>[http://yudkowsky.net/rational/virtues This essay], while entertaining and useful, can be seen as Yudkowsky trying to reinvent the sense of awe associated with religious experience in the name of rationalism. It's even available in [http://yudkowsky.net/assets/pdf/twelve_virtues.pdf tract format].</ref>
* Attempting to argue their points with them resulting in being told to <s>[[Scientology|take a communications course]]</s> study several LessWrong "sequences"<ref>http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences</ref> (article series) rather than them addressing your point.<ref>[http://rationalmorality.info/?p=112 Less is More - or: the sorry state of AI friendliness discourse] (Stefan Pernar, ''Rational Morality'' blog, 2009-11-06)</ref>
+
* Attempting to argue their points with them resulting in being told to <s>[[Scientology|take a communications course]]</s> study several LessWrong "sequences"<ref>http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences</ref><ref>"You should try reading the sequences" is LessWrong for "fuck you."</ref> (article series) rather than them addressing your point.<ref>[http://rationalmorality.info/?p=112 Less is More - or: the sorry state of AI friendliness discourse] (Stefan Pernar, ''Rational Morality'' blog, 2009-11-06)</ref>
 
* "Eliezer Yudkowsky suggests ..."
 
* "Eliezer Yudkowsky suggests ..."
  

Revision as of 12:22, 10 November 2010

LessWrong is, in its own words, a community blog "devoted to refining the art of human rationality." To the uninitiated, it is basically a blog where scientists have rather dry chats about Bayesianism, artificial intelligence, cognitive biases, and what "rationalists" should and shouldn't do. Think of it as the teetotalling and disapproving older brother of RationalWiki, waiting for us to get off the drugs and sex and follow them into an Ivy League college. Like all good things, it makes for an entertaining read, in moderation.

LessWrong is dominated by Eliezer Yudkowsky, a research fellow for the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence. Yudkowsky generally blogs about cognitive science, something called "fun theory,"[1] and AI, which is his field of study. He is currently adapting his blog posts into a book on human rationality.[2]

On the whole, LessWrong is worth checking out, but it has some rather annoying features that we will now proceed to give undue weight to.

Contents

The good

Less Wrong is a highly active and sizable forum. Due to its karma system, whereby contributors gain points for making smart and insightful comments and its ability to promote discussions to its front page, its content is usually very high quality. The karma system almost entirely eradicates trolling, at least in the sense that most people would recognise it. Almost every article is thought-provoking and often links to others, resulting in an unwitting tab explosion - each one packed with increasingly fascinating insights into why you, yes you, are an idiot.

Eliezer Yudkowsky's writings on the subject of cognitive biases and rational thinking are among the best on the internet. These are expanded on his own site, and in the archives of Overcoming Bias, a site where he once contributed before setting up Less Wrong. The Less Wrong wiki and sequences are intensive and lengthy explorations of human rationalism, and while they may be far too esoteric and complex for fledgling rationalists, can be considered near essential reading for anyone wanting to take that next step to hardcore epistemic rationalism about everything.

The bad

Despite the clarity of writing in some of the posts, it's often difficult to understand what the hell is going on in many of the discussions unless you're a frequent visitor who knows what is going on - diving straight into a real discussion on your first visit is more or less impossible. So it is a difficult community to get fully "in" with. The community isn't always the kindest to newcomers. New users are expected to understand Bayesian inference (preferably the Less Wrong way) and have a basic understanding of almost every scientific field and a firm grasp of mathematics.[3]

Members of the Less Wrong community are expected to be on board with the singularitarian/transhumanist/cryonics[4] bundle. As many of them are actively involved with singularity and artificial intelligence research, then this bias may be understandable. Anyone without a favourable view of these concepts is likely to be shunned as a closed-minded moron.

The site has also been criticised for practically being a personality cult of Eliezer Yudkowsky. This is almost certainly not intentional on his part, just ask Brian of Nazareth.[5]

The ugly

Less Wrong does have its ugly side. Almost claiming ownership of the word "rationalism" has been a contentious issue as one cannot say that they're rational unless they're fully on board with Bayesian thinking amongst other things. It's unclear whether Descartes, Spinoza or Leibniz would have lasted a day without being voted down into oblivion. Indeed, if anyone even hints at trying to claim to be a "rationalist" but doesn't write exactly what is expected, they're likely to be treated with contempt - as criticism of RationalWiki and the Richard Dawkins forum seem to attest to.

Some members of this "rationalist" movement literally believe in what amounts to a Hell that they will go to if they get artificial intelligence wrong in a particularly disastrous way,[6] to the point of actually having nightmares about it. Furthermore, related to this way of getting AI wrong, there exists an idea so utterly Cthulhuian in nature that simply knowing it puts you in terrible danger, for rather esoteric reasons of decision theory and something called "acausal trade". When this idea first made an appearance in a post by long-term contributor Roko, the post was censored from Less Wrong for everyone's safety. This was Yudkowsky's actual reasoning concerning the censorship, suggesting that he may be tap dancing on the fine line between visionary and madman. [7] Roko left Less Wrong altogether after posting it, deleting all his contributions.[8] [9][10] Occasionally a poster will complain about the idea being deleted,[11] rather than, e.g., writing it up as science fiction.[12]

In the outside world, the ugly manifests itself as LessWrong acolytes, minds freshly blown, metastasising to other sites, bringing the Good News for Modern Rationalists, without clearing their local jargon cache.

How to spot a LessWrongian in your sceptical discussion

Sceptical discussion spaces will often have people show up labelling themselves "rationalist" and being as irritating as teenage nerds who've just discovered Ayn Rand. Take one drink for each of:

  • "As rationalists, we should ..."
  • "As a rationalist, you should ..."
  • "Bayesian" (particularly when they seem to have picked a real doozy of a prior probability; no working will ever be shown)
  • Preaching "rationalism" as if it's a religion substitute.[13][14]
  • Attempting to argue their points with them resulting in being told to take a communications course study several LessWrong "sequences"[15][16] (article series) rather than them addressing your point.[17]
  • "Eliezer Yudkowsky suggests ..."

So why are they like this?

A common way for very smart people to be stupid is to think they can think their way out of being apes with pretensions. However, there is no hack that transcends being human. Playing a "let's pretend" game otherwise doesn't mean you win all arguments, or any. Even with the best intentions and knowledge about biases and rational thinking, you won't transcend and avoid the pitfalls of having a brain designed, in the words of Science of Discworld, to shout at monkeys in the next tree. This doesn't mean you shouldn't give it a damn good try and LessWrong gives it a better shot than most, but remember that you, yes you, are an idiot.

You'll be unsurprised to know that the LessWrong community self-diagnoses themselves as being on the Asperger's/autism spectrum.[18] They do all this because they are bad at human interaction.[19]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. http://lesswrong.com/lw/y0/31_laws_of_fun/
  2. http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/2u3/request_interesting_invertible_facts/
  3. http://lesswrong.com/lw/2un/references_resources_for_lesswrong/
  4. "I'm going to come out and say it: If you don't sign up your kids for cryonics then you are a lousy parent." (Eliezer Yudkowsky, Normal Cryonics, 19 Jan 2010)
  5. But it's a damn funny cult
  6. http://lesswrong.com/lw/2ft/open_thread_july_2010_part_2/2dg1?c=1
  7. However, this being the internet, the post containing the idea wasn't lost, for it was on the web long enough for Google to stash a copy here.
  8. http://lesswrong.com/lw/2ft/open_thread_july_2010_part_2/2c46?c=1
  9. http://lesswrong.com/lw/2i4/contrived_infinitetorture_scenarios_july_2010/2bh5?c=1#2bsq
  10. http://lesswrong.com/lw/2ft/open_thread_july_2010_part_2/2c6y?c=1
  11. http://lesswrong.com/lw/2i4/contrived_infinitetorture_scenarios_july_2010/2bh5?c=1
  12. http://lesswrong.com/lw/2ft/open_thread_july_2010_part_2/2dmh?c=1
  13. e.g. Eliezer Yudkowsky on fanfic.net. At least he's using Harry Potter fanfic rather than a new Atlas Shrugged. And, unlike Rand, he can actually write.
  14. This essay, while entertaining and useful, can be seen as Yudkowsky trying to reinvent the sense of awe associated with religious experience in the name of rationalism. It's even available in tract format.
  15. http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences
  16. "You should try reading the sequences" is LessWrong for "fuck you."
  17. Less is More - or: the sorry state of AI friendliness discourse (Stefan Pernar, Rational Morality blog, 2009-11-06)
  18. Aspergers Poll Results: LW is nerdier than the Math Olympiad? Of course, this poll was linked at the end of a long article on Asperger's Syndrome, so the self-selection bias was overwhelming.
  19. This discussion is particularly interesting in terms of the social anthropology of LessWrongians. Note the downvoting of those pointing out that mating behaviour is rather important to what makes humans human.
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools