SneerClub

1189 readers

17 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

See our twin at Reddit

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

blakestacey@awful.systems

dgerard@awful.systems

self@awful.systems

New Scientist reviews the Yudkowsky/Soares book. They don't recommend it. (www.newscientist.com)

submitted 3 days ago by dgerard@awful.systems to c/sneerclub@awful.systems

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 12 points 3 days ago (3 children)

i actually got hold of a review copy of this

(using the underhand scurvy weasel trick of asking for one)

that was two weeks ago and i still haven't opened it lol

better get to that, sigh

this review has a number of issues (he liked HPMOR) but the key points are clear: bad argument, bad book, don't bother

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 13 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

this review has a number of issues

For example, it doesn't even get through the subhead before calling Yud an "AI researcher".

All three of these movements [Bay Area rationalists, "AI safety" and Effective Altruists] attempt to derive their way of viewing the world from first principles, applying logic and evidence to determine the best ways of being.

Sure, Jan.

[–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 6 points 3 days ago

“AI researcher blogger”

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 8 points 3 days ago

logic and evidence

Please, it's "facts and logic". Has this author never been on the internet?

[–] bitofhope@awful.systems 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's even worse than Methods? That should be surprising but isn't.

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

it's shorter!

[–] YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Methods is increasingly looking like Ulysses for the Internet age. You may or may not get anything worthwhile from trying to read it, but the scope and scale are such that it's impressive it exists and also you will almost certainly not finish it, leaving the parts justifying it's considerable reputation somewhere in the 40,000 we words you didn't read.

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 6 points 1 day ago

At least with Ulysses, there's a brothel chapter.

[–] Architeuthis@awful.systems 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

They also seem to broadly agree with the 'hey, humans are pretty shit at thinking too, you know' line of LLM apologetics.

“LLMs and humans are both sentence-producing machines, but they were shaped by different processes to do different work,” say the pair – again, I’m in full agreement.

But judging from the rest of the review I can see how you kind of have to be at least somewhat rationalist-adjacent to have a chance of actually reading the thing to the end.

[–] YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems 9 points 3 days ago

Born to create meaning

Forced to produce sentences

[–] ShakingMyHead@awful.systems 3 points 2 days ago

Kind of like saying that humans are car-driving machines because we drive cars.