It’s worth noting that there are domains where there are no experts
If I were to write a follow-up talking more about this expert-novice divide, I’d focus on defining expert/novice not based on their absolute level of knowledge/experience in the field, but relative to some specific person. E.g. someone might be an expert in AI safety compared to their grandma, but a novice in AIS compared to Yudkowski.
I think defining experts/novices as relative labels is more informative than saying there are domains where there are no experts. I agree that there are domains where everyone has barely an elementary understanding of the field, but within that narrow range of expertise I think it’s still useful to have a term for those at the upper end of the range compared to those at the lower end (although this is mostly semantics).
A class of people who thinks of themselves as experts but doesn’t really have a clue is the most dangerous when it comes to trapping themselves in traps of their own making.
I wouldn’t define these people as experts. 100% agree that they’re the most dangerous, especially if they’ve learnt to disguise themselves as experts without actually having the required expertise. In the essay I mostly ignored people who are dishonest and try to disguise themselves as experts/novices when they’re not. Maybe that’s a post for another time.
On second reading, you might be referring to people who honestly believe themselves to be experts but actually have no clue what’s going on? That’s something I didn’t consider. Again I agree that they’re dangerous. It feels like the sort of thing LessWrong would have written about before? I’m curious about how one could discover that you’re in this category of honestly-but-fake experts.
If you go to Yudkowski and say “Hey, I want to build an AGI, can you please tell me how to do so safely?”, he will answer “I can’t tell you how to build an AGI safely. If you are going to successfully build an AGI you are likely to kill us all. Don’t build an AGI”.
Yudkoswky is self-aware that he doesn’t have the expertise that would be necessary to build a safe AGI. If you then search for an expert who gives you some advice about how to build your AGI and you succeed in building your AGI and kill everyone, that was a trap of your own making.
If you want a past example, David Chapman´s article about Domestic Science is great. More recently, you had a flatlining of childhood obesity rates in the second Bush administration. Afterwards, Michelle Obama started a huge program to improve childhood nutrition through various measures recommended by nutrition scientists. After those programs childhood obesity rates were rising again.
Scientists studying nutrition do believe themselves to be experts, but seem to give advice that produces more problems than it solves.
Reality doesn´t just reward you for having put in a lot of effort.
If I were to write a follow-up talking more about this expert-novice divide, I’d focus on defining expert/novice not based on their absolute level of knowledge/experience in the field, but relative to some specific person. E.g. someone might be an expert in AI safety compared to their grandma, but a novice in AIS compared to Yudkowski.
I think defining experts/novices as relative labels is more informative than saying there are domains where there are no experts. I agree that there are domains where everyone has barely an elementary understanding of the field, but within that narrow range of expertise I think it’s still useful to have a term for those at the upper end of the range compared to those at the lower end (although this is mostly semantics).
I wouldn’t define these people as experts. 100% agree that they’re the most dangerous, especially if they’ve learnt to disguise themselves as experts without actually having the required expertise. In the essay I mostly ignored people who are dishonest and try to disguise themselves as experts/novices when they’re not. Maybe that’s a post for another time.
On second reading, you might be referring to people who honestly believe themselves to be experts but actually have no clue what’s going on? That’s something I didn’t consider. Again I agree that they’re dangerous. It feels like the sort of thing LessWrong would have written about before? I’m curious about how one could discover that you’re in this category of honestly-but-fake experts.
If you go to Yudkowski and say “Hey, I want to build an AGI, can you please tell me how to do so safely?”, he will answer “I can’t tell you how to build an AGI safely. If you are going to successfully build an AGI you are likely to kill us all. Don’t build an AGI”.
Yudkoswky is self-aware that he doesn’t have the expertise that would be necessary to build a safe AGI. If you then search for an expert who gives you some advice about how to build your AGI and you succeed in building your AGI and kill everyone, that was a trap of your own making.
If you want a past example, David Chapman´s article about Domestic Science is great. More recently, you had a flatlining of childhood obesity rates in the second Bush administration. Afterwards, Michelle Obama started a huge program to improve childhood nutrition through various measures recommended by nutrition scientists. After those programs childhood obesity rates were rising again.
Scientists studying nutrition do believe themselves to be experts, but seem to give advice that produces more problems than it solves.
Reality doesn´t just reward you for having put in a lot of effort.