SneerClub

983 readers

1 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.]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

"As always, pedophilia is not the same as ephebophilia." - Eliezer Yudkowsky, actual quote (www.lesswrong.com)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

61 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I somehow missed this one until now. Apparently it was once mentioned in the comments on the old sneerclub but I don't think it got a proper post, and I think it deserves one.

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

[–] [email protected] 31 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Feynman had a story about trying to read somebody's paper before a grand interdisciplinary symposium. As he told it, he couldn't get through the jargon, until he stopped and tried to translate just one sentence. He landed on a line like, "The individual member of the social community often receives information through visual, symbolic channels." And after a lot of crossing-out, he reduced that to "People read."

Yud, who idolizes Feynman above all others:

I also remark that the human equivalent of a utility function, not that we actually have one, often revolves around desires whose frustration produces pain.

Ah. People don't like to hurt.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

tbh I don't think that's a good rephrasing by feynman.

I also don't think yud intended to claim that people don't like to hurt. I'm pretty sure what he meant is that people have a strong desire not to desire things fruitlessly, one that can outweigh EV considerations. still gibberish unless you have enough rationalist brain poisoning to take the assumptions behind "can outweigh EV considerations" seriously, which I don't

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago

It's definitely a bad rephrasing. It's like trying to simplify E = MC² to "big boom". Like technically yes, matter can be converted into energy but that loses a lot in the rephrasing. It just sounds like he didn't understand the subject.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

More like "People want things and hurt if they don't get them. Also, look at me saying things like utility function! Function is math! Math is smart. I am smart! Isn't that so cool?"

[–] Irishred88 8 points 11 months ago

I too wish academics, and those at least pretending, would do away with the rhetorical peacocking. Nobody learns from it and it makes the writing inaccessible. It's deliberate gatekeeping confused for professional writing.