Ask yourself honestly, does this help or hurt his reputation and ability to convince others of his cause? Maybe if Yudkowsky had impeccable credentials and oodles of charisma and public speaking ability, these decisions would seem less important, but he has very few traditional credentials that will impress a new audience (Yudkowsky did not even graduate from high school, much less have a college degree or PHD), and he is not a very charismatic speaker. Thus, each Yudkowsky appearance actually hurts our cause, as in the best of times, Yudkowsky is not a very good spokesperson for AI safety, and in the worst of times, he is wearing ostentatious hats while coming across poorly to his audiences.
I don’t agree with this argument.
He is actually a substantially charismatic and experienced speaker and has a variety of legible credentials, like “famous public intellectual,” “founded and works at a big AI nonprofit,” and “wrote a recent well-known book about AI.” Those are dramatically more selective credentials than having a college degree.
Even if you are just a totally normally credible person with no particular credentials, then you are advancing a cause if you go around competently explaining the basic ideas behind a cause to people who don’t already know them. Eliezer isn’t perfect at explaining because it’s a tricky argument that’s hard to explain, but I don’t see other people doing a clearly better job.
This “debate” was a pretty weird one-off (since as far as I watched it was not really a “debate” so much as “this other guy pays to rant at an audience who all showed up to see the spectacle”) so I have no idea if it was a good or bad event for AI safety. I don’t think it was very important. But in general from what I have seen of his media appearances I think Eliezer is doing great work.
I think even Yudkowsky would agree he is not the most charismatic speaker. Yudkowsk’s advantages come from his intellect, but this advantage can be better deployed in a medium like writing or bf omeone else who is fanilliar with his arguments and a tad bit more charismatic (Nate Soares, for instance). I am not saying for Eliezer Yudkowsky to stop working on AI Safety, just public appearances. Would you like to run a poll on this question and bet on the results?
I don’t care to run it, but if there were going to be such a poll among some population that I have any clue about, I would be up for betting on the results. I would guess Eliezer to rate in the top decile for population public speaking ability and above median among e.g. all LW participants.
I hadn’t seen that poll until now. I think it’s totally consistent with Eliezer being a good figurehead for his beliefs? Eliezer is arguing for a surprising and alarming conclusion so 45% taking him seriously just seems like a good achievement.
In general I expect that it’s just going to be hard to convince people, so I don’t think that because everyone isn’t convinced, that means that Eliezer is doing a bad job.
The poll wasn’t about “Do you Agree with Yudkowsky on AI Safety”, it was about whether or not one should take him seriously. Personally, if I think someone’s argument is very bad, I still might think they are worth taking seriously due to their credibility, and assume others believe the same (For instance, I take William Lane Craig decently seriously even if I disagree with his arguments for god). Thus, I still think this poll is the best evidence we have for whether or not Eliezer Yudkowsky is persuasive to a general audience.
I don’t agree with this argument.
He is actually a substantially charismatic and experienced speaker and has a variety of legible credentials, like “famous public intellectual,” “founded and works at a big AI nonprofit,” and “wrote a recent well-known book about AI.” Those are dramatically more selective credentials than having a college degree.
Even if you are just a totally normally credible person with no particular credentials, then you are advancing a cause if you go around competently explaining the basic ideas behind a cause to people who don’t already know them. Eliezer isn’t perfect at explaining because it’s a tricky argument that’s hard to explain, but I don’t see other people doing a clearly better job.
This “debate” was a pretty weird one-off (since as far as I watched it was not really a “debate” so much as “this other guy pays to rant at an audience who all showed up to see the spectacle”) so I have no idea if it was a good or bad event for AI safety. I don’t think it was very important. But in general from what I have seen of his media appearances I think Eliezer is doing great work.
I think even Yudkowsky would agree he is not the most charismatic speaker. Yudkowsk’s advantages come from his intellect, but this advantage can be better deployed in a medium like writing or bf omeone else who is fanilliar with his arguments and a tad bit more charismatic (Nate Soares, for instance). I am not saying for Eliezer Yudkowsky to stop working on AI Safety, just public appearances. Would you like to run a poll on this question and bet on the results?
Nate Soares
I don’t care to run it, but if there were going to be such a poll among some population that I have any clue about, I would be up for betting on the results. I would guess Eliezer to rate in the top decile for population public speaking ability and above median among e.g. all LW participants.
How do you explain the results in the Reddit poll I linked to from r/SamHarris then?
I hadn’t seen that poll until now. I think it’s totally consistent with Eliezer being a good figurehead for his beliefs? Eliezer is arguing for a surprising and alarming conclusion so 45% taking him seriously just seems like a good achievement.
In general I expect that it’s just going to be hard to convince people, so I don’t think that because everyone isn’t convinced, that means that Eliezer is doing a bad job.
The poll wasn’t about “Do you Agree with Yudkowsky on AI Safety”, it was about whether or not one should take him seriously. Personally, if I think someone’s argument is very bad, I still might think they are worth taking seriously due to their credibility, and assume others believe the same (For instance, I take William Lane Craig decently seriously even if I disagree with his arguments for god). Thus, I still think this poll is the best evidence we have for whether or not Eliezer Yudkowsky is persuasive to a general audience.