Talk:Eliezer Yudkowsky

Vanity page?

As far as I know (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), Yudkowsky has no credentials of any kind -- no degree, no relevant job, no publications (except those he has "published" himself on his own web page, that is), no awards, etc. -- relevant to his "research". In fact, I don't think he has an education of any kind, even a high school diploma. I would be glad if someone who knew a little more about Yudkowsky's background and in what way he qualifies as a researcher (as opposed to just having a layman interest) in the topics he mentions researching could weigh in on this matter, because I strongly suspect that the article is currently misleading. All I've heard about Yudkowsky is that he's good at self-promotion -- like writing Wikipedia articles. --Miai 02:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't write the EliezerYudkowsky page in Wikipedia. So whatever it is, it's not self-promotion.

If Bayesian theorists had duels, I'd challenge you to one. I know the math. I just don't have a piece of paper saying I know the math. See e.g. An Intuitive Explanation of Bayesian Reasoning or A Technical Explanation of Technical Explanation.

My paper "Levels of Organization in General Intelligence" will appear in the edited volume "Artificial General Intelligence", forthcoming, eds. Ben Goertzel and Cassio Pennachin, Springer-Verlag.

Those sufficiently in the know regularly cite me as that weird guy who actually cares about friendly Artificial Intelligence. E.g., open up Kurzweil's "The Singularity Is Near" (currently #14 on Amazon.com), flip to the index, and you'll see entries for Eliezer Yudkowsky; look them up, and most of them are discussing Friendly AI (along with a miscellaneous quote or two from my other writings on the Singularity).

This is my full-time day job. I get paid to do this. Does that qualify as a relevant job?

As for whether all that qualifies me for a Wikipedia entry - I don't know, I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor. Someone just pinged me on IRC that this page was here, and I responded. --Eliezer Yudkowsky 4 October 2005.

Yudkowsky: yes, you definitely qualify for a Wikipedia article. --Maru (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, you do qualify for an article. However, I still think it should be stated somewhere that you lack formal credentials, and that your work is normally not published in peer-reviewed journals (ok, so you got a paper into a Springer volume, but that's a feat within reach of practically any doctoral student in the world). In short, my objection is simply that the article make you sound much more important than you really are. If you did not create this article, then of course this is none of your fault, but that does not dimish my considering it misleading. Miai 13:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Another thing: I have no idea why on earth you propose a "duel" to show off your math skills. I never said that I, personally, was a better Bayesian than you, or, for that matter, anything about Bayesianism in particular. Nor do I understand why it should matter how good at math you are relative to some random wikipedian (me). That said, I took a glance at your articles. The math in them is not beyond what any college freshman learns during his first week of probability theory. Qualifying as a Bayesian theorist who knows the math must mean something more than simply being able to explain Bayes theorem to laymen, or just about everyone qualifies, making the label worthless. --Miai 13:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Explaining Bayes's Theorem in such a way that people actually understand it is no small feat, as you'd know if you were familiar with the literature on Bayesian education or rather the failures thereof. A talented math student can pick it up just by looking at the equation, but most people can't. Anyway, if you're already familiar with Bayes, good for you. If you want to see me engaged in a more difficult Bayesian argument with a doctorate-decorated scientist, see this thread. Why is this relevant? Because you questioned whether I know my topic. I do. Any other questions? Right now I am still trying to solve the problems, such as Friendly AI, that I seem to have become known for having pointed out. I've made a deliberate choice to focus my time on solving these open problems, rather than writing papers - I can afford to do that, since I'm not pursuing tenure. I left the formal school system after the eighth grade, but it should be bloody obvious that I'm not operating on an eighth-grade knowledge base. Are you seriously going to argue that it goes up to level XYZ and then stops there, or whatever? If you want to try and explain in the article that I got by without a formal education, then to be fair you should try and convince readers that I know the math anyway, and at that point it stops looking like an encyclopedia article and starts looking like an argument... I think your tone in your first query betrays your own lack of neutrality on this issue. Let's hear from someone with no particular emotional investment what they think the encyclopedia article ought to say. --Eliezer Yudkowsky 4 October 2005.

I took a look over the history of the page. (Jeebers...) Calling me a "self-proclaimed genius" isn't NPOV, but probably neither is referring to me as a "cognitive scientist" at this point in time. I don't think "Artificial intelligence researcher" is particularly controversial; plenty of people working on that problem don't have doctorates in the subject nor extensive publications. I made a quick edit of my own page (for the first time, please note), essentially just deleting stuff that wasn't NPOV (plus a quote and link that were obsolete), and the page now looks a bit more neutral. Not perfect, but more neutral. Other than that, heck, I didn't write it. --Eliezer Yudkowsky 4 October 2005.

My personal opinions on you and your work do not enter the equation here. I'm pointing out that things that are factual, indisputable, and relevant to the article are missing. One of those is that you have no formal education. Another is that your publications normally do not appear in peer-reviewed journals. Are you seriously disputing that such information is relevant in an article about a researcher (self-proclaimed or not)? As for having an "emotional investment" in the matter -- give me a break. Just because I don't hold your research in high esteem that doesn't mean I'm being emotional about it. However, I wholeheartedly agree that someone else should look at this page and correct it. In fact, I even suggested so in my first posting on this talk page. Just scroll up and it's right there. --Miai 22:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Wired quote

Added in this edit by Miai:

When Wired News wrote an article about Yudkowsky, and asked researchers to comment on Creating Friendly AI, the only response quoted was by one well-known researcher who deemed it "worthless speculation."¹.

In addition to being factually incorrect (the Wired article in question quotes Alon Halevy of the University of Washington immediately afterwards), no name is given for this comment so the fact he is a "well-known" researcher is unverifiable. The opinion is too strong to be NPOV if there's no name attatched to it. The criticism from Alon Halevy would be more appropriate, because the author provides a name, credentials, and information on why his opinion should matter—Halevy's an editor at the Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research. -- Schaefer 01:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with it being POV, since it only reiterated something written in a referred article published in a serious publication (well, ok, it's Wired, but you get my point). Perhaps your claim is merely that I should have clarified that further by writing "according to Wired News, one well-known researcher deemed it worthless speculation"? As for it being factually incorrect, that's also a little murky. Wired never says that Halevy actually comments on Yudkowsky's paper, only that he's not "worried about friendliness." Unlike the "well-known researcher," there isn't much to indicate that his comment is directed specifically at Yudkowsky's writings, but rather seems to adress the more general issue of whether spending time thinking about "friendly AI" is a worthwhile pursuit. All this said, though, I accept you removing the quote. I have no strong feelings either way, and if you feel that it was inappropriate, I won't bitch about it. PS. Please sign your talk page edits. Miai 00:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Gaping factual errors inserted by Miai

Yudkowsky has no college degree, and did not complete high school. He decided to devote his life to the Singularity at age 11, after reading Vernor Vinge's True Names. In eighth grade he became convinced that the Singularity was so near that there was no time for a traditional adolescence, and therefore quit school.¹ He has since devoted his time to thinking about the Singularity.

I left the school system after the eighth grade, which is hardly the same as failing to complete high school. I read True Names at age 16. Your given explanation for why I left the school system is completely wrong - I had never heard of Vinge's Singularity at that point and I do not in general endorse that kind of short-term thinking. You appear to have made up this 'fact' completely from thin air, which is hardly appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I deleted this paragraph entirely and made several other changes to maintain a more neutral NPOV. I'm not sure how one goes about asking Wikipedia editors to ban someone from editing an article, but making stuff up out of thin air is not an appropriate way to write an encyclopedia article, not to mention major factual errors. I think you've tipped your hand with this one. Please stop editing this page. Thank you. --EliezerYudkowsky 00:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Eliezer, I don't know you. I am relying on the Wired article, which is the only article about you that I know of (which has been published in a semi-respectable publication). If you were misquoted in that article, my apologies, but all my edits had footnotes, and everything I wrote can be traced back to that article, so you should really blame Wired rather than me. I am certainly not "making stuff up out of thin air," so please stop accusing me of things I am quite obviously not guilty of. Now to the rest of your reply. If your idea of a "neutral NPOV" is to write of yourself that you are "one of the foremost experts on the technological singularity" or to remove all information on your schooling, although information about colleges degrees and lack thereof is present in all other Wikipedia articles about researchers, I'm afraid I can't let that stand. As for you not finishing high school, I never wrote that you "failed to complete high school" -- I wrote that you "did not complete high school." Is this incorrect? Did you in fact complete high school? If you did in fact do so, my apologies. Then please, by all means, change the article to reflect this fact. Do not, however, remove the whole section. Now, if you excuse me, I have some editing to do. Miai 01:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Give me a bloody break! You read one hatchet job full of factual errors, not a primary source but a news article written by someone who spent a couple of hours, and you think you're an expert? If you think Declan's hatchet job is the only thing that's ever been written about me, you're displaying pure ignorance, so great that you're not even aware that other information exists. I'm not particularly fond of it, but you could check the subsection on me in Damien Broderick's The Spike. Also, I am one of the foremost experts on the technological singularity, widely listed as such, and I don't see why you would dispute this. If you don't know me, quit editing an article about me! There's plenty of people who've known me since 1996, both admirers and detractors. Let someone who actually knows what he's talking about edit the article. --EliezerYudkowsky 01:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry if I have not read everything there is written about you, but surely you can see the danger with the object of an article being the main editor of it himself, especially if his edits are without footnotes. If you are widely credited as "one of the foremost experts on the technological singularity," find someone who has written that in some publication somewhere and then refer to that publication in the article. But you can't just write it because it feels good. In the same vein, I do not agree with your assessment that your article is better written by someone who "knows you". I prefer if it is written by people who have no personal stake in the matter. Speaking of which: you must understand that I have nothing personal against you, and that I am not "out to get you." I came across this article by a coincidence and felt that it was not telling the whole story. For example, the matter of your schooling, which you continue to avoid. Sorry, but I won't stop editing it merely because I include things that you are not comfortable with. If they are accurate and relevant, they belong in the article. BTW, I would be glad if you provide a link to the autobiographical essay where you write of the importance of your work to humanity, etc. if that wasn't also "made up" by the author of the Wired article. Miai 01:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Miai, I never edited this article until someone pinged me on IRC that you had done so. If you want to revert the entire article to its status before either of us came along, that's fine by me.

After the Wired article ran, I was so horrified at the way the quotes had been taken out of context that I took down all autobiographical material about me to prevent further misreporting. If you have never had a reporter write about you, ask a friend who has been reported on. The experience, that first time, is rather like being run over by a truck - you do not realize how truly awful is the state of reporting, how little you should trust reporters, until you have been reported on yourself. Furthermore, even if the quotes were in their original context, I have by now repudiated that entire point of view - my outlook has changed drastically since I was 21 years old. Even in their original context, where they made far more sense, those quotes would be of interest strictly as a history of the ideas I discarded on the way to where I am now. If anyone had so much spare time. There is still plenty of primary source about me on the Net, including other articles than that Wired silliness - just read, read, read.

With regard to academia 'showing little interest' in my work - you have a rather idealized view of academia if you think that they descend on every new idea in existence to approve or disapprove it. It takes a tremendous amount of work to get academia to notice something at all - you have to publish article after article, write commentaries on other people's work from within your reference frame so they notice you, go to conferences and promote your idea, et cetera. Saying that academia has 'shown little interest' implies that I put in that work, and they weren't interested. This is not so. I haven't yet taken my case to academia. And they have not said anything about it, or even noticed I exist, one way or the other. A few academics such as Nick Bostrom and Ben Goertzel have quoted me in their papers and invited me to contribute book chapters - that's about it.

I suppose I can see why you, knowing nothing whatsoever about me except that Wired hatchet job, would be skeptical that I am one of the foremost experts on Vinge's Singularity. If you Google a bit, you will find that any page that lists people involved with the Singularity is more likely to list me than not. If you flip to the index of Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near, by far the bestselling book on the Singularity, you shall find me there. Et cetera.

I am an academic outsider. I despaired of America's failing educational system at the age of 12, and learned on my own thereafter. The prospect of getting tenure at, say, MIT, doesn't really interest me - I have different goals; that's not what I want to do with my life. However, I regard myself as working mostly within the standard frameworks, such as Bayesian probability theory, Bayesian decision theory, the neo-Darwinian synthesis in evolutionary theory, et cetera, and those few works I have written for an academic audience reflect this. I agree that this should be in the article somewhere as factual information, and I will try to figure out an appropriate NPOV way to include it. Making me out as an ignorant madman railing against an indifferent academia simply isn't true.

In all seriousness - if you have nothing against me, then quit editing the article until you know. There is no reason why you can do better arguing and editing from complete ignorance of this topic than you could editing any other Wikipedia article in ignorance. --EliezerYudkowsky 02:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"If you want to revert the entire article to its status before either of us came along, that's fine by me."—For the record, I support anyone that wishes to reduce this article back to stub or redirect to the article for the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence (I have made such redirects in the past). Yudkowsky's notability does not extend beyond his service in that organization, and everything he's written that needs mention is an official SIAI publication. Describing Yudkowsky's life from a NPOV is proving problematic, because there are very few secondary-source articles about the Singularity that can confirm Yudkowsky's prominence in the field, and the one article that exists about Yudkowsky himself seems to contain misquotations and factual errors. I think this is evidence of a deeper malaise: Yudkowsky's life just isn't an encyclopedic topic. His advocacy of the Singularity is notable. The institute he co-founded is notable. But the details of his education and what repudiated views he once held are, well, what I would call "fancruft" if Yudkowsky were a fictional character. It doesn't need to be here. -- Schaefer 03:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I would support redirecting the article, were it not for the fact that transhumanists form a disproportionally large subgroup on Wikipedia. For that reason, there are many Wikipedia articles about completely unnotable transhumanists, and those of even moderate interest, like Yudkowsky, are likely to just get created again if removed. I agree with your characterization of the problem we're having here, though. If there would be some way of proclaiming that a particular page is a stub or redirect by decision, I would support your proposal, but I think that is against the Wikipedia spirit. As for now, I cannot support either a redirect or a revert, but it is clear that something has to be done. Miai 03:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Schaefer's observation about fancruft. I'm slicing the article down to a stub - call it an anti vanity-edit. If anyone tries to elaborate the article, hopefully they'll check the discussion page first.

Incidentally, Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, was posting to the SL4 list (which I own and operate) back when Wales was still working on Nupedia. (Yes! I am an actual person; yea, my history stretches back even to the roots of Wikipedia itself! We could always ask Wales to edit this article; he's not a domain expert, but he knows more about me than you do, Miai...) If there's a "disproportionately large" subgroup of transhumanists on Wikipedia, it's because transhumanists are early adopters and helped build Wikipedia at its beginnings. --EliezerYudkowsky 21:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)