I didn’t read it as joking (more as a form of “Ha ha only serious”), so we should probably update our probabilities …
I know that if I was disagreeing with Eliezer over maths, I would think twice before deciding he’s mistaken, though I haven’t followed enough of the details of this case to tell who is right and who is wrong (it’s a case of “Was Eliezer justified in thinking that Sewing-Machine was not justified in thinking that Eliezer was mistaken”).
That doesn’t mean I think Eliezer is always right, but rather that I think misunderstanding and subtle differences in use of terminology are more likely explanations.
I didn’t read that line as having a strong connection to the rest of the conversation; it seemed like a (self-deprecating) one-liner preceding something more serious. I usually assume that Eliezer isn’t being self-aggrandizing, due to e.g. this comment.
I’m definitely in the same boat as you are when it comes to the prospect of disagreeing with Eliezer about math.
Hold on, I’m confused. Self-deprecation is criticism of oneself and self-deprecating humor involves making jokes at one’s own expense. Eliezer was exaggerating his opinion of himself as a way of poking fun at the very high esteem that some people hold him in, a state of affairs with which he is at the very least uncomfortable. Does it not make sense to say that he was making a self-deprecating joke about his reputation?
I don’t know to what extent community norms around here allow me to make this request, but: can you guys start a new post on this topic, before my thoughtful and informative contribution turns into an area with 40 nice comments about Peano arithmetic and a thousand about Eliezer Yudkowsky?
Suggested title: “Remarks on a possibly arrogant comment made by Eliezer Yudkowsky.”
Yeah, I got that you meant it that way. I was just referencing the fact that, on the surface level, declaring oneself practically infallible is not very self-deprecating at all.
I didn’t read it as joking (more as a form of “Ha ha only serious”), so we should probably update our probabilities …
I know that if I was disagreeing with Eliezer over maths, I would think twice before deciding he’s mistaken, though I haven’t followed enough of the details of this case to tell who is right and who is wrong (it’s a case of “Was Eliezer justified in thinking that Sewing-Machine was not justified in thinking that Eliezer was mistaken”).
That doesn’t mean I think Eliezer is always right, but rather that I think misunderstanding and subtle differences in use of terminology are more likely explanations.
I didn’t read that line as having a strong connection to the rest of the conversation; it seemed like a (self-deprecating) one-liner preceding something more serious. I usually assume that Eliezer isn’t being self-aggrandizing, due to e.g. this comment.
I’m definitely in the same boat as you are when it comes to the prospect of disagreeing with Eliezer about math.
That word, “self-deprecating” — I do not think it means what you think it means. ;)
(But, more seriously: no, I think I do know what you mean.)
Hold on, I’m confused. Self-deprecation is criticism of oneself and self-deprecating humor involves making jokes at one’s own expense. Eliezer was exaggerating his opinion of himself as a way of poking fun at the very high esteem that some people hold him in, a state of affairs with which he is at the very least uncomfortable. Does it not make sense to say that he was making a self-deprecating joke about his reputation?
I don’t know to what extent community norms around here allow me to make this request, but: can you guys start a new post on this topic, before my thoughtful and informative contribution turns into an area with 40 nice comments about Peano arithmetic and a thousand about Eliezer Yudkowsky?
Suggested title: “Remarks on a possibly arrogant comment made by Eliezer Yudkowsky.”
My thoughts on the matter are thoroughly exhausted, so you have nothing further to fear from me in this regard.
Yeah, I got that you meant it that way. I was just referencing the fact that, on the surface level, declaring oneself practically infallible is not very self-deprecating at all.