I don't know why people feel comfortable telling people how to dress, who to talk to, or how to live, but it always feels authoritarian to me. (Strong downvote.)
If Yudkowsky was not a public figure, I would not care, but empirically, adhering to social norms is a good idea when one is trying to influence society. Maybe Yudkowsky thinks we are already doomed, but I do not so I would prefer it if one of the most prominent contributors to AI safety discourse didn’t dress like a cartoon villain.
On this note, arguing in favor of LLM-generated writing, and using AI-generated images in blog posts, similarly works to degrade the "seriousness" of the x-risk movement. The future is weird. Young people are weird. There are plenty of normal people making the extinction argument, and anyone can get a statistical model to make claims about human extinction; humans have been independently predicting extinction events for as long as they've been writing. Many, especially of the exact target audience for x-risk arguments, have a strong aversion to generative AI images and writing. Saving the movement starts with you.
There are historical ideological movements that can serve as fairly good examples of Yudkowsky's actions being fine. The free software movement had its share of serious-as-in-societally-acceptable intellectuals, and it had its share of people like Richard Stallman. Critically, both of those groups were making public appearances simultaneously. There is a case to be made that Yudkowsky is a worse representative of his respective movement than Stallman was of his own, and I doubt many people would deny that, but the core value proposition of public-facing figures of this model is not to swallow up the people who would and will be taken by men in business suits and elbow pads, it is to give outliers a place to sink their teeth into. Sometimes this comes in way of putting on a clown costume and playing a jester; sometimes this comes in way of playing yourself in a very authentic, if not socially-acceptable, fashion.
Seriousness is, generally, not worth preserving at all costs. Casting a wide net is less effective and less fragile than casting many nets. In a sea where ideological capture has succeeded so unflinchingly that even billionaires are talking about x-risk, it makes sense to allow for a few people on the sillier side to scope out the frontier of future arguments to be made.
I say this as a person who has no love for Yudkowsky:[1] He is extremely good at memetics targeting outliers, even if (partially) unintentionally. The outliers he's gathered have, historically, been unusually-effective at spreading his word. He is being an effective activist in this sense. Wearing a silly outfit and banging loudly on his drum is likely as optimal a strategy as he has available to him to make impact.
- ^
Submitted to the reader without further comment as evidence to why: https://flarelang.sourceforge.net/
1- Blog posts are not public appearances, and LessWrong blog posts are not released to a general audience. Furthermore, I am not a public figure associated with AI safety like Eliezer Yudkowsky is, so even if these posts damage my reputation (unlikely), it would not be a big deal for the AI safety movement. I am not arguing Yudlowsky should stop writing on LessWrong, merely to stop making public appearances or at least take them more seriously and be more careful about his public image.
- I don’t think the general populace really understands much about AI safety, so it makes the most sense to focus on appealing to the general public as opposed to casting out a specific net for… steam punk enthusiasts?
Ask yourself honestly, does this help or hurt his reputation and ability to convince others of his cause? Maybe if Yudkowsky had impeccable credentials and oodles of charisma and public speaking ability, these decisions would seem less important, but he has very few traditional credentials that will impress a new audience (Yudkowsky did not even graduate from high school, much less have a college degree or PHD), and he is not a very charismatic speaker. Thus, each Yudkowsky appearance actually hurts our cause, as in the best of times, Yudkowsky is not a very good spokesperson for AI safety, and in the worst of times, he is wearing ostentatious hats while coming across poorly to his audiences.
I don't agree with this argument.
- He is actually a substantially charismatic and experienced speaker and has a variety of legible credentials, like "famous public intellectual," "founded and works at a big AI nonprofit," and "wrote a recent well-known book about AI." Those are dramatically more selective credentials than having a college degree.
- Even if you are just a totally normally credible person with no particular credentials, then you are advancing a cause if you go around competently explaining the basic ideas behind a cause to people who don't already know them. Eliezer isn't perfect at explaining because it's a tricky argument that's hard to explain, but I don't see other people doing a clearly better job.
This "debate" was a pretty weird one-off (since as far as I watched it was not really a "debate" so much as "this other guy pays to rant at an audience who all showed up to see the spectacle") so I have no idea if it was a good or bad event for AI safety. I don't think it was very important. But in general from what I have seen of his media appearances I think Eliezer is doing great work.
- I think even Yudkowsky would agree he is not the most charismatic speaker. Yudkowsk’s advantages come from his intellect, but this advantage can be better deployed in a medium like writing or bf omeone else who is fanilliar with his arguments and a tad bit more charismatic (Nate Soares, for instance). I am not saying for Eliezer Yudkowsky to stop working on AI Safety, just public appearances. Would you like to run a poll on this question and bet on the results?
- Nate Soares
I don't care to run it, but if there were going to be such a poll among some population that I have any clue about, I would be up for betting on the results. I would guess Eliezer to rate in the top decile for population public speaking ability and above median among e.g. all LW participants.
I hadn't seen that poll until now. I think it's totally consistent with Eliezer being a good figurehead for his beliefs? Eliezer is arguing for a surprising and alarming conclusion so 45% taking him seriously just seems like a good achievement.
In general I expect that it's just going to be hard to convince people, so I don't think that because everyone isn't convinced, that means that Eliezer is doing a bad job.
The poll wasn't about "Do you Agree with Yudkowsky on AI Safety", it was about whether or not one should take him seriously. Personally, if I think someone's argument is very bad, I still might think they are worth taking seriously due to their credibility, and assume others believe the same (For instance, I take William Lane Craig decently seriously even if I disagree with his arguments for god). Thus, I still think this poll is the best evidence we have for whether or not Eliezer Yudkowsky is persuasive to a general audience.
I do agree it is probably wise to avoid making a public appearance with some anonymous debating partner or interviewer who remains anonymous during the public event.
Personally I think his background (not even high school grad) and the outfit both display him as norm braking and original in thought. His accomplishments seem to support the view he is very intelligent (not some quack or cult thing) so formal credentials don't matter for me, and the outfit doesn't seem to undermine credibility (a bit of messenger versus message issue there I think).
Have not seen the debate (or seen transcripts) so not take on that aspect.
I just don't have it in me to require public figures suppress harmless fun in their lives because the public will boo them for it. Like sure, more normal clothing choices would improve his reputation among the general public on the margin - but it seems so small of an impact that I am unwilling to endorse a norm that he shouldn't show up with the fun goggles and hat. If it was a meeting with the president, I'd agree with you; but something like this mostly doesn't matter.
For the same reason, I wouldn't want a norm requiring that a gay person hide their sexuality for public approval. Nor would I want a norm that he shouldn't spend some of his money purely for his own selfish benefit, instead of only making himself happy to the extent that it increases his productivity.
You do not have to be a saint, if you don't want to. I know I would find it sad to not get to wear cool clothing, especially if I was >40 years old, tired, and thought that the world was probably going to end in my lifetime.
Can we really not allow indulgences on the scale of weird clothing at an unimportant, unserious debate?
The debate itself may have been a bad decision. It sounds like it wasn't worth the money even on pure hedonics grounds for him. On the PR side, it mostly seems to not have much impact, given that currently the video only has 17k views on YouTube.
Sure, maybe on Dath Ilan people don’t really care about how people dress, but these norms certainly exist in our world, and it is probably not worth challenging them when far greater issues exist. Sure, you may not personally care about outfit choices, but there is a reason most public figures that rely on public approval (politicians, lawyers, etc) dress in formal attire. Dressing like a steam-punk villain will make general audiences less willing to listen to you.
Lol at the comparison to sexuality. Eliezer Yudkowsky has worn normal clothes in the past, it’s not that big a deal to just conform to societal norms in this case (and clothing preferences are not nearly as intrinsic/immutable as sexual ones).
I have no problem with Yudkowsky earning money or spending money for persona pleasure, but the issue is he is doing so while making his views seem fringe by dressing like a cosplayer. It doesn’t matter that it is on an ”unimportant, unserious debate” it’s a video released to the general public that others can reference to when trying to make the case that Eliezer Yudkowsky is an unqualified grifter.
You make the point about not having to be a saint, but 1.) I think it’s general good to offer constructive criticism to people (even if they are close to being a “saint”). Just because an element of your behavior doesn’t immediately pose risk to yourself or others doesn’t mean we shouldn’t criticize it, especially if the problem is relatively simple and easy to fix 2.) this is not a referendum on Eliezer Yudkowsky as a person, it is a referendum on Eliezer Yudkowsky as a spokesperson for AI safety. If it turned out that Eliezer Yudkowsmy dressed like this at home, I would find it a bit wierd but wouldn't’ write a post about it.
Besides thinking that in the end most people simply don't pay attention to this anyway, so it doesn't matter that much whether and how he appears in live debates:
My hunch is that it's reasonably okay to appear like that because the one thing modern people are fed up about and skeptical against, is the well thought-through professionalized elite trained to sell the bullshit in the superficially most convincing way. So maybe a person who simply is a bit more casual or cheap-fun seeming in their appearance, might not hurt. It's an empirical question and I have no proof, of course, but if I had to bet, I'd put a substantial weight on that hypothesis.
What is your background? I feel like if you are living in the bay area, you may have different assumptions than the general population. I am from Florida, and while many people I know wouldn’t be judgemental towards more casual attire in a debate, they would be distracted by Yudkowsky‘s outfit which is both ostentatious and absurd.
Recently, Eliezer Yudkowsky participated in a very flawed podcast of Doom Debates that reflected poorly on him, and, likely in the eyes of many, the entire AI safety movement. The premise of the debate was that Eliezer Yudkowsky was offered 10,000$ to debate an anonymous "AI lab director", and this director quickly made the debate into a mess by interrupting, yelling, and using profanity. Sure, Yudkowsky may have come across as sane in comparison, but his opponent did make one critical point during the debate: Yudkowsky's agreeing to debate him in the first place may have been a mistake.
To analyze why, think of other public figures. Generally, the more respectable and well-known the figure, the more exacting they are in choosing who to interact with publicly. This isn't just due to them having time constraints or options on which they can spend their time; it is also due to the fact that, as you become more respectable and well-known, your reputation also becomes valuable, and thus something worth protecting. If you frequently participate in farces like the recent Doom Debate, it diminishes people's respect for you and thus imposes a real cost. Yudkowsky's decision can surely be defended in this case. Perhaps Yudkowsky can deploy this money in a way that makes up for reputational damage, but this decision is just the first in a long line of choices to disregard reputational costs. For instance, Yudkowsky frequently wears bizarre and garish outfits. In the aforementioned debate, Yudkowsky wore the pictured steampunk-inspired outfit that looked right out of a comic convention. Ask yourself honestly, does this help or hurt his reputation and ability to convince others of his cause? Maybe if Yudkowsky had impeccable credentials and oodles of charisma and public speaking ability, these decisions would seem less important, but he has very few traditional credentials that will impress a new audience (Yudkowsky did not even graduate from high school, much less have a college degree or PHD), and he is not a very charismatic speaker. Thus, each Yudkowsky appearance actually hurts our cause, as in the best of times, Yudkowsky is not a very good spokesperson for AI safety, and in the worst of times, he is wearing ostentatious hats while coming across poorly to his audiences.
Maybe in a more ideal world, charisma and appearance wouldn’t matter so much, but we need to play the cards we are given. Major news outlets have focused on Eliezer Yudkowsky’s idiosyncratic fashion sense[1], and it's not just traditional media that have been skeptical of Yudkowsky. Even before a lot of the scrutiny from the media, many people were skeptical of Yudkowsky. On r/samharris, a poll on whether people should take Eliezer Yudkowsky seriously had 571 respondents: 300 of them replied "No". Of course, Yudkowsky is not stupid; he has an apparent justification for his actions: "If it ever starts looking like the difference between death and life then perhaps I will, or more likely simply withdraw from public view. {...}". According to Yudkowsky, humanity is likely doomed anyway, so his reputation in society isn't that important. Might as well grab that cash while he still can. However, as someone who believes that AI poses an existential risk to humanity yet still believes there is a lot we can do about it, this decision-making process is profoundly self-defeating and counterproductive.
We have much to thank Eliezer Yudkowsky for. His work has greatly contributed to the development of the AI Safety field, and this community has certainly affected many people’s lives in a positive manner. I hope Eliezer Yudkowsky continues to share his ideas (in writing) about whichever topics interest him. However, I also hope you, fellow members of this forum, can join me in this plea: Eliezer Yudkowsky: please stop making public appearances.
I didn't review the article fully because it is paywalled, but Eliezer Yudkowsky referred to it as a "smear article" and it uses a picture of Yudkowsky wearing a sparkly hat.