The Nonlinear Library LW - What is the next level of rationality? by lsusr
Dec 12, 2023
10:31
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: What is the next level of rationality?, published by lsusr on December 12, 2023 on LessWrong.
Yudkowsky published Go Forth and Create the Art! in 2009. It is 2023. You and I agree that, in the last few years, there haven't been many rationality posts on the level of Eliezer Yudkowsky (and Scott Alexander). In other words, nobody has gone forth and created the art. Isn't that funny?
What Came Before Eliezer?
Yes, we agreed on that. I remarked that there were a few levels of rationality before Eliezer. The one directly before him was something like the Sagan-Feynman style rationality (who's fans often wore the label "Skeptics"). But that's mostly tangential to the point.
Or perhaps it's not tangential to the point at all. Feynman was referenced by name in Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality. I have a friend in his 20s who is reading Feynman for the first time. He's discovering things like "you don't need a labcoat and a PhD to test hypotheses" and "it's okay to think for yourself".
How do you see it connecting to the question "What's the next level of rationality?"
Yudkowsky is a single datapoint. The more quality perspectives we have about what "rationality" is, the better we can extrapolate the fit line.
I see, so perhaps a preliminary to this discussion is the question "which level of rationality is Eliezer's?"?
Yeah. Eliezer gets extra attention on LessWrong, but he's not the only writer on the subject of rationality. I think we should start by asking who's in this cluster we're pointing at.
Alright, so in the Feynman-Sagen cluster, I'd also point to Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Sam Harris, Hitchens, and James Randi, for example. Not necessarily because I'm very familiar with their works or find them particularly valuable, but because they seem like central figures in that cluster.
Those are all reasonable names, but I've never actually read any of their work. My personal list include Penn Jillette. Paul Graham and Bryan Caplan feel important too, even though they're not branded "skeptic" or "rationality".
I've read a bit, but mostly I just came late enough to the scene and found Eliezer and Scott quickly enough that I didn't get the chance to read them deeply before then, and after I did I didn't feel the need.
Yep, and Paul Graham is also someone Eliezer respects a lot, and I think might have even been mentioned in the sequences. I guess you could add various sci-fi authors to the list.
Personally, I feel the whole thing started with Socrates. However, by the time I got around to cracking open The Apology, I felt like I had already internalized his ideas.
But I don't get that impression when I hang out with Rationalists. The median reader of Rationality: A-Z shatters under Socratic dialogue.
I agree, though if we're trying to cut the history of rationality in periods/levels, then Socrates is a different (the first) period/level (Though there's a sense in which he's been at a higher level than many who came after him).
I think Socrates' brilliance came from realizing how little capacity to know they had at the time, and fully developing the skill of not fooling himself. What others did after him was develop mostly the capacity to know, while mostly not paying as much attention to not fooling themselves.
I think the "Skeptics" got on this journey of thinking better and recognizing errors, but were almost completely focused on finding them in others. With Yudkowsky the focus shifted inward in a very Socratic manner, to find your own faults and limitations.
Tangent about Trolling as a core rationality skill
I've never heard the word "Socratic" used in that way. I like it.
Another similarity Yudkowsky has to Socrates is that they're both notorious trolls.
That made me laugh. It's true. I remember stories from the Sequences of Dialogues he had with people who he b...
Yudkowsky published Go Forth and Create the Art! in 2009. It is 2023. You and I agree that, in the last few years, there haven't been many rationality posts on the level of Eliezer Yudkowsky (and Scott Alexander). In other words, nobody has gone forth and created the art. Isn't that funny?
What Came Before Eliezer?
Yes, we agreed on that. I remarked that there were a few levels of rationality before Eliezer. The one directly before him was something like the Sagan-Feynman style rationality (who's fans often wore the label "Skeptics"). But that's mostly tangential to the point.
Or perhaps it's not tangential to the point at all. Feynman was referenced by name in Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality. I have a friend in his 20s who is reading Feynman for the first time. He's discovering things like "you don't need a labcoat and a PhD to test hypotheses" and "it's okay to think for yourself".
How do you see it connecting to the question "What's the next level of rationality?"
Yudkowsky is a single datapoint. The more quality perspectives we have about what "rationality" is, the better we can extrapolate the fit line.
I see, so perhaps a preliminary to this discussion is the question "which level of rationality is Eliezer's?"?
Yeah. Eliezer gets extra attention on LessWrong, but he's not the only writer on the subject of rationality. I think we should start by asking who's in this cluster we're pointing at.
Alright, so in the Feynman-Sagen cluster, I'd also point to Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Sam Harris, Hitchens, and James Randi, for example. Not necessarily because I'm very familiar with their works or find them particularly valuable, but because they seem like central figures in that cluster.
Those are all reasonable names, but I've never actually read any of their work. My personal list include Penn Jillette. Paul Graham and Bryan Caplan feel important too, even though they're not branded "skeptic" or "rationality".
I've read a bit, but mostly I just came late enough to the scene and found Eliezer and Scott quickly enough that I didn't get the chance to read them deeply before then, and after I did I didn't feel the need.
Yep, and Paul Graham is also someone Eliezer respects a lot, and I think might have even been mentioned in the sequences. I guess you could add various sci-fi authors to the list.
Personally, I feel the whole thing started with Socrates. However, by the time I got around to cracking open The Apology, I felt like I had already internalized his ideas.
But I don't get that impression when I hang out with Rationalists. The median reader of Rationality: A-Z shatters under Socratic dialogue.
I agree, though if we're trying to cut the history of rationality in periods/levels, then Socrates is a different (the first) period/level (Though there's a sense in which he's been at a higher level than many who came after him).
I think Socrates' brilliance came from realizing how little capacity to know they had at the time, and fully developing the skill of not fooling himself. What others did after him was develop mostly the capacity to know, while mostly not paying as much attention to not fooling themselves.
I think the "Skeptics" got on this journey of thinking better and recognizing errors, but were almost completely focused on finding them in others. With Yudkowsky the focus shifted inward in a very Socratic manner, to find your own faults and limitations.
Tangent about Trolling as a core rationality skill
I've never heard the word "Socratic" used in that way. I like it.
Another similarity Yudkowsky has to Socrates is that they're both notorious trolls.
That made me laugh. It's true. I remember stories from the Sequences of Dialogues he had with people who he b...