but the Science versus Bayescraft rhetoric is a disaster.
What’s wrong with you? It’s true that people who don’t already have a reason to pay attention to Eliezer could point to this and say, “Ha! An anti-science crank! We should scorn him and laugh!”, and it’s true that being on the record saying things that look bad can be instrumentally detrimental towards achieving one’s other goals.
But all human progress depends on someone having the guts to just do things that make sense or say things that are true in clear language even if it looks bad if your head is stuffed with the memetic detritus of the equilibrium of the crap that everyone else is already doing and saying. Eliezer doesn’t need your marketing advice.
But you probably won’t understand what I’m talking about for another eight years, ten months.
What’s wrong with you? It’s true that people who don’t already have a reason to pay attention to Eliezer could point to this and say, “Ha! An anti-science crank! We should scorn him and laugh!”, and it’s true that being on the record saying things that look bad can be instrumentally detrimental towards achieving one’s other goals.
But all human progress depends on someone having the guts to just do things that make sense or say things that are true in clear language even if it looks bad if your head is stuffed with the memetic detritus of the equilibrium of the crap that everyone else is already doing and saying. Eliezer doesn’t need your marketing advice.
But you probably won’t understand what I’m talking about for another eight years, ten months.
What do you expect to happen in January 2026, and why? (And why then?)
Also, are you the same person[1] as the “Z. M. Davis” you are replying to?
[1] Adopting the usual rather broad notion of “same person”.
I think the current-day ZMD is talking to his past self (8 years and 10 months from the replied-to post).
D’oh!