Is this just the idea that there exists a kind of Kolmolgorov complexity for hand-wavy epistemology, where it is possible to find or derive the shortest algorithm for producing a given output/hypothesis?
If you are willing to engage the authors tediousness, it doesn't matter what he ultimately tells you, because by finishing it you have already invested and committed to the idea that the author has something meaningful and valuable to say, and you are left trying to piece together an interpretation that serves this flawed and tendentious premise. The article is meaningless, the writing is designed to exploit your sunk-cost bias in having finished it. It is just an expression of the authors self-importance and a mental virus for suckers.
But wait, clearly I have misunderstood and it is my own set of intellectual limitations and beliefs that has placed me outside the circle of initiates. Just because there is some valuable or satisfying bait at the bottom of it doesn't make it any less of a trap.
This medium doesn't provide for merely lifting a middle finger in the air to the author, but I hope these words have expressed the sentiment adequately.
"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community."
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
In terms of snark, I am sincere that Yudkowsky earned it with this post. His method of abusing the attention of readers bears addressing, and I'd argue the line between rhetoric and indoctrination tactics is defined in this style. I'm a fan of SSC and other rationalist thinking, and even some of his sequences, but there is a writing style that is a peculiar mix of filibuster and mesmerism that needs to be addressed as what it is - an irritating tactic to appeal to vulnerable minds. Surely he and thinkers like him can bear the criticism.
I found the literary style of this article to be really aggravating and distracting. The content is interesting, but the author is showing off their prose more than actually communicating anything.
I found the literary style of this comment to be really aggravating and distracting. The content is uninteresting, but the author is showing off their haughtiness more than actually communicating anything.
I regret not reading the comments here first. I thought there was something I really needed to learn buried in this article, but having given up 1/2 way though after resting so I could pick it back up and plow through to the end... I see my efforts wouldn't have payed off, regardless.
If some can explain in a reasonable length prose what this was to have taught me, or why it is important to know, I would be appreciative.
If you are willing to engage the authors tediousness, it doesn't matter what he ultimately tells you, because by finishing it you have already invested and committed to the idea that the author has something meaningful and valuable to say, and you are left trying to piece together an interpretation that serves this flawed and tendentious premise. The article is meaningless, the writing is designed to exploit your sunk-cost bias in having finished it. It is just an expression of the authors self-importance and a mental virus for suckers.
But wait, clearly I have misunderstood and it is my own set of intellectual limitations and beliefs that has placed me outside the circle of initiates. Just because there is some valuable or satisfying bait at the bottom of it doesn't make it any less of a trap.
This medium doesn't provide for merely lifting a middle finger in the air to the author, but I hope these words have expressed the sentiment adequately.