Jef: That's more like it. Though part of your explanation is still unnecessarily convoluted and nested (try using shorter sentences), now I get it. It's an alright, non-fake concept/observation. But that still doesn't mean the perception of fakeness/having nothing to say isn't valid. But it may be just a perception in many if not all cases - you need to work harder to avoid being perceived as having nothing to say, that's all - talking a lot and saying a lot instead of talking a lot and saying little/nothing.

On Eliezer's comment about abstract stuff = fake, nothing to say:

If you really want to communicate your ideas, transfer them all the way to another brain, you would try harder to present them so that almost anyone who wants to understand them (with the right level of background info) has no hard time doing so. Instead it's like you cram whole functions or classes into convoluted one-liners like some extreme programmer showing off his chops. Yeah, it may work, but you got to show that your code really runs for us mortals.

I understand Eliezer's ideas without much difficulty. I read and integrate information from the top guys you mentioned. I have hard time following your stuff or don't get it at all.

For me, Eli & Co 1 = Real vs You 0 = Fake, or whatever you want to call it.

I just love it when Eli keeps it real and doesn't spare the bullets. That accurate & lethal sniper rifle of his is never pointed at the wrong target. I detected no emotion involved, by the way; never with haste, never without a reason.