confidence level: I am a physicist, not a biologist, so don’t take this the account of a domain level expert. But this is really basic stuff, and is very easy to verify. Recently I encountered a scientific claim about biology, made by Eliezer Yudkowsky. I searched around for the source of the claim, and found that he has been repeating versions of the claim for over a decade and a half, including in “the sequences” and his TED talk. In recent years, this claim has primarily been used as an argument for why an AGI attack would be extremely deadly. I believe this claim is factually incorrect.

This is my article on one of the dumbest and most obviously false claims Yudkowsky has ever made, about biology not using covalent bonds.

    • blakestacey@awful.systemsMEnglish
      9·
      1 年前

      If I were inclined to be charitable, I’d wonder who he was talking to that honestly thought in terms of “elan vital” and “game balance”. Like, take the question “Why is flesh soft and diamond hard?”, and ask somebody without a science background. I’d guess that the typical response would go something like, “I’unno, it just is.” Or, “I’ve never thought about it, why?” Or, “Heh heh heh, you said hard”. I suspect that Yud is making up a layperson of his own invention, a mythical audience upon whom his Educate spell is perfectly effective. He refuses to admit any challenge to his mental model of how the process of explanation works.

      • YouKnowWhoTheFuckIAM@awful.systemsEnglish
        7·
        1 年前

        It’s a technique he uses to get you, the reader, to understand that you aren’t the person who thinks in terms of elan vital.

        In one of his essays on quantum phenomena and personal identity he does it with time. He explains something like if you think time in the universe works in the sense of clock time, then you just don’t have a clue about physical reality, so when he gets to his next point it stands in contrast to the straw layman. But his readers are obviously already the sort of people who do know that, because they’re nominally smart, education-enthusiastic western(ised) nerds, even if they understand next to nothing about how this works out in real physical theory.

        So the strawman doesn’t just create a favourable contrast for Yudkowsky’s argument, it constructs them as smart and different from lay people - it isn’t a one-shot effect, it builds as he starts small and piles on increasingly esoteric speculations (even if this is the first “mind = blown” blog post they’ve ever read from this weird guy).

          • YouKnowWhoTheFuckIAM@awful.systemsEnglish
            7·
            1 年前

            I’ve been saying this more often lately, but LessWrong gets its readers in, by and large, at the absolute bottom rung of intellectual thought, they don’t know anything else

            You have to interpret somebody getting into LessWrong as just graduating from Cracked or Newgrounds in the mid-2000s

          • blakestacey@awful.systemsMEnglish
            5·
            1 年前

            LessWrongers don’t have a sense of a “vaguely plausible normie” that is calibrated in a grounded way (by trying to teach the Intro for Non-Majors courses, trying to explain to relatives and high-school friends what you do for a living, etc.). Instead, they have a concept constructed to set them apart and above. The normie is the ideal rube, the complete inverse of the sophisticate that the LessWronger aspires to be or believes themselves to have become.