At the time of that recording, the race to AGI was being stoked exclusively by actors in the USA (Anthropic, OpenAI, etc).
It is now 2 years later. They got what they asked for, and now other actors have joined the race as well.
idk what to tell you man, you picked one line in one podcast from two years ago. I go on a lot of podcasts, I think out-loud a lot, and I update a lot. Do you want people to have to qualify every comment they make on a podcast with “In my current best estimate, at this specific point in time, which may be invalidated or updated within the next 2 years, I would say that X is a currently appreciably-accurate assessment about the state of the world”?
Yes, we are in fact in a worse world than we were 2 years ago. Things that I was trying to advocate against doing (such as hyperstitioning the AGI race into existance) have in fact happened. Trust me, I (and I assume everyone else) know, and you will see this reflected in more recent podcast appearances of mine.
I can’t speak for others, but for me it feels like “Wow look at this guy who in 2006 said ‘we are not in a recession right now’, but it’s 2008 now, and we are in fact in a recession!”
I do not think your combative and sensationalistic attitude is conducive to productive community sense making, as others have already told you in other comments. If you are just trying to get epic digs in (“ok how about this ONE.”), take it to X, I respect that LessWrong has higher norms of good faith.
Does your lack of reply mean you haven’t updated at all@Connor Leahy ?
Again, the question isn’t even who was right about what, it was 1) are people on this website capable of updating, and b) are the other people on this website capable of holding each other accountable to rationalist principles.
So far, not seeing a lot of evidence of either, but by all means, happy to be proven wrong!
His lack of reply probably means he doesn’t want to engage with you, likely due to what he described as “your combative and sensationalistic attitude.”
Pretty sure the double −17 downvotes for trying to hold him accountable (to the question of whether or not he has updated) is proof of my original conjecture that this community has problems with epistemic humility.
Rationality is about logic, not tone or hurt feelings.
I thought the point of rationality was not to let our human emotions get in the way of truth.
...You do not appear to me to have very much regard for the truth, given the whole thing where you declared that someone had not updated when they obviously had based only on them refusing to talk to you when you were being kind of rude.
I guess “There is no appreciable risk from non-Western countries whatsover,” (as well as his other predictions in that video clip) did turn out wrong.
Based on his language use, he does sound defensive about being wrong,[1] but you also sound defensive about people criticizing your debate style.
The truth is we are all human, and it’s unrealistic for humans to be unaffected by emotion and follow only logic! We are all defensive, and that’s okay.
If someone is defensive, please do not repeatedly ping them challenging them to finish the debate, because the only thing that accomplishes is make them feel bad, and never changes their minds.
I used my strong votes to reduce the −17 downvotes to −14, in case that makes you feel less defensive and more willing to agree. That’s how defensiveness works, see? :)
I suspect he was defensive because of your awkward screenshot of him. It somehow paints a really bad picture of him, but you probably did that by accident so it’s just a misunderstanding :/
At the time of that recording, the race to AGI was being stoked exclusively by actors in the USA (Anthropic, OpenAI, etc).
It is now 2 years later. They got what they asked for, and now other actors have joined the race as well.
idk what to tell you man, you picked one line in one podcast from two years ago. I go on a lot of podcasts, I think out-loud a lot, and I update a lot. Do you want people to have to qualify every comment they make on a podcast with “In my current best estimate, at this specific point in time, which may be invalidated or updated within the next 2 years, I would say that X is a currently appreciably-accurate assessment about the state of the world”?
Yes, we are in fact in a worse world than we were 2 years ago. Things that I was trying to advocate against doing (such as hyperstitioning the AGI race into existance) have in fact happened. Trust me, I (and I assume everyone else) know, and you will see this reflected in more recent podcast appearances of mine.
I can’t speak for others, but for me it feels like “Wow look at this guy who in 2006 said ‘we are not in a recession right now’, but it’s 2008 now, and we are in fact in a recession!”
I do not think your combative and sensationalistic attitude is conducive to productive community sense making, as others have already told you in other comments. If you are just trying to get epic digs in (“ok how about this ONE.”), take it to X, I respect that LessWrong has higher norms of good faith.
Sorry for my tone. Yours reads as very defensive.
So you admit you were wrong?
How have you updated your views on China or what we should do as a result?
Does your lack of reply mean you haven’t updated at all @Connor Leahy ?
Again, the question isn’t even who was right about what, it was 1) are people on this website capable of updating, and b) are the other people on this website capable of holding each other accountable to rationalist principles.
So far, not seeing a lot of evidence of either, but by all means, happy to be proven wrong!
ok cool, so no update!
Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case!
His lack of reply probably means he doesn’t want to engage with you, likely due to what he described as “your combative and sensationalistic attitude.”
It’s a very simple question and speaks to the heart of the post, which he decided to comment on.
@Connor Leahy have you updated or not?
Saying you don’t like my tone is an ad hominem. It’s not rational.
Pretty sure the double −17 downvotes for trying to hold him accountable (to the question of whether or not he has updated) is proof of my original conjecture that this community has problems with epistemic humility.
Rationality is about logic, not tone or hurt feelings.
I thought the point of rationality was not to let our human emotions get in the way of truth.
...You do not appear to me to have very much regard for the truth, given the whole thing where you declared that someone had not updated when they obviously had based only on them refusing to talk to you when you were being kind of rude.
I guess “There is no appreciable risk from non-Western countries whatsover,” (as well as his other predictions in that video clip) did turn out wrong.
Based on his language use, he does sound defensive about being wrong,[1] but you also sound defensive about people criticizing your debate style.
The truth is we are all human, and it’s unrealistic for humans to be unaffected by emotion and follow only logic! We are all defensive, and that’s okay.
If someone is defensive, please do not repeatedly ping them challenging them to finish the debate, because the only thing that accomplishes is make them feel bad, and never changes their minds.
I used my strong votes to reduce the −17 downvotes to −14, in case that makes you feel less defensive and more willing to agree. That’s how defensiveness works, see? :)
I suspect he was defensive because of your awkward screenshot of him. It somehow paints a really bad picture of him, but you probably did that by accident so it’s just a misunderstanding :/